Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with the prayer that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner be directed to grant and pay family pension to the petitioner under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and other Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 from the date of death of her husband and be further directed to pay family pension to the petitioner as her husband was an ex -army man and retired from the services of the Army on 10.1.1971 having rendered services from 10.1.1956 till then.
(2.) CONTROVERSY raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of Kerala High Court in T.A. Prabhavarthy v. UOI O.P. No. 6920/1989 decided on 21.3.1994. In fact, this writ petition was filed in the year 1988. The respondents have all along been contending that the aforesaid judgment of Kerala High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. This matter was listed on number of dates and was adjourned enabling the respondents to show as to what was the outcome of the SLP filed by them before the Supreme Court. But till date, the respondents are not in a position to show that the aforesaid judgment has been reversed. The Kerala High Court in the aforesaid judgment on consideration of the law on the subject held that the provident fund authorities took a definite stand that the provident fund organisation is a statutory organisation and the family pension scheme framed under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is on contributory basis for which the employee during his employment is to contribute regularly each month at a fixed rate out of his wages earned and that in case of death of the employee during service, the provident fund organisation is under obligation to pay to his survivors family pension each month out of those deposits made from the wages of the members, while he was alive and it has no bearing with the Consolidated Funds of India. Even before this Court, the stand that has been taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is that the petitioner is entitled to receive pension from Army as well as from Provident Fund Commissioner and a letter to this effect was sent to the Controller of Defence, Allahabad. It is further contended by the Provident Fund Commissioner that the pension is paid to the petitioner in lieu of family pension contribution paid by her husband during his life time. The amount of family pension till date has been lying in the bank account of the petitioner and the same is continued to be credited in future also. However, the Union of India has been resisting the claim of the petitioner to receive the family pension which in view of the aforesaid discussion is wholly unjustified, because the family pension scheme of the Provident Fund Commissioner stands on an entirely different footing than the family pension paid by the Government of India.
(3.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent Union of India is directed to pay to the petitioner family pension from the date of death of her husband and continue to pay till she survives. Petitioner shall also be entitled to arrears of the family pension together with interest @ 9% per annum. It is however made clear that the petitioner would also be entitled to payment of family pension from the Provident Fund Commissioner in addition to the family pension which she would be receiving from Union of India in lieu of services rendered by her late husband in the Indian Army from 10.1.1956 to 10.1.1971.;