M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in letter dated 8.12.2002 issued by respondent No. 2, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of the benefits under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme.
(2.) PETITIONER 's husband was in the service of the respondent - Tin Plate Company of India Limited, Jamshedpur. In 1986 petitioner's husband became the member of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and he had been regularly making payment of the required amount till February, 1999. The deceased had filled up the declaration form in 1968 and in the date of birth column he himself wrote the year of birth as 1947. According to the petitioner that year of the birth of the deceased husband of the petitioner was treated as the age of the deceased. Petitioner's husband retired from service on 16.2.1999 and died on 7.2.2000 leaving behind the petitioner as the widow and three sons. After his death the petitioner approached the concerned respondents for grant of pension under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and in this regard letter was sent to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Respondent No. 2, by letter dated 30.6.2000 asked the Tin Plate Company for clarification as to whether the deceased already crossed 60 years before implementation of EPF, 1995. The Tin Plate Company, by several letters, informed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the year of birth of the deceased was 1947 and it is not a fact that he was 47 years old at the time of submission of the declaration form. Inspite of all these clarification respondent No. 2 refused to grant the benefit of the Scheme to the petitioner -widow of the deceased.
(3.) I have heard Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.P.N. Roy. learned counsel for the respondent -authority as also the counsel appearing for the Tin Plate Company. Mr. P.P.N. Roy. learned counsel mainly contended that the petitioner approached the authority for pension at a very belated stage and in view of the age mentioned in the declaration form the deceased employee crossed 60 years before implementation of the Scheme of 1995. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to pension.;