D.N.PATEL - (1.) THE present petition has been preferred for getting family pension because of the death of the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner expired on 16th August, 1995. The husband of the petitioner retired on 30th September, 1991 from the services of the respondents. The, petitioner has neither received any pension amount nor the family pension and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has submitted that a detailed counter -affidavit has been filed, wherein, it has been submitted that when the husband of the petitioner retired from the services of the respondents i.e. on 30th September, 1991, there was no scheme for the pension in operation. Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was in existence. The amount towards contributory provident fund has also been paid to the husband of the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that after a long lapse of time, General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 was floated, wherein, it has been stated that those who have retired prior to the Year, 1995 can opt for the pension scheme, but, it was a conditional one, as per Chapter -II, Clause -3, that the retired employees have to refund the corporation's contribution or company's contribution to the provident fund and the whole amount is to be repaid to the respondents with simple interest at rate of 6%. Thus, from the Contributory Provident Fund amount, which is already paid by the" respondents to the husband of the petitioner, the employees contribution is to be repaid so that pension amount can be paid under the General Insurance Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. This amount has not been repaid by the petitioner or by her husband to the respondents and, therefore, the husband of the petitioner is not entitled for pension. Pension Scheme, 1995 is annexed as Annexure -'A' to the counter -affidavit.
(3.) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that Family Pension is not payable to the petitioner as the husband of the petitioner was not entitled for the pension, as per Clause 38 in Chapter -VII of the Pension Scheme, 1995 and, therefore, the petitioner is neither entitled for the Family Pension nor the husband of the petitioner is entitled for the any pension amount.;