ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J. - (1.) Though this writ petition has been listed today under the heading "To Be Mentioned", the writ petition is being taken up for hearing at this stage only on consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) The writ petitioner is the widow of a deceased employee of Hindustan Copper Limited. In this writ petition she prays for coverage under the Employees' Pension Scheme framed under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It appears that she was covered under the Scheme of 1971 and received benefit of Rs. 4968/- in the month of May, 2001, as the Life Assurance Benefit.
(3.) Mr. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the provident fund authorities on instruction submits that as per the provisions of the 1995 Scheme, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefits contemplated therein. He also submitted on instruction that the authorities are in the process of finalising her dues under the 1995 Scheme but she will have to refund the sum received under the 1971 Scheme with interest. Mr. Anowar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that his client has no objection in refunding the said sum but the amount she would be required to refund may be adjusted against her dues accruing under the 1995 Scheme. In view of such submission, I do not think any lis remains to be adjudicated upon in this writ petition.;