- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioners have originally approached this Court with the following prayers: (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order/orders, direction/directions commanding upon the concerned Respondents to immediately release the one time withdrawal of the contributions of the members of the petitioner Association under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1971 as per the interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India No. 962/98 dated 15.07.1998 whereby and whereunder, the petitioners continued to contribute as per the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 during the pendency of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and in view of the fact that the members of the petitioner Association took Voluntary Retirement or separated from the services of M/s. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited prior to 11.11.2003 i.e. the date of delivery of the final judgment of the Supreme Court upholding the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1995; (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions commanding upon the respondents not to direct the members of the petitioner Association to deposit the lumpsum contribution for the periods 1995 to 2003 for availing the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1995 since the members of the petitioner Association had contributed and availed Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 as per interim order of the Supreme Court of India and also the fact that the final judgment dated 11.11.2003 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India does not restrict the claim of the petitioner also in view of the fact that the petitioner members are not in a position to deposit the lumpsum payment for the contributions for the period 1995 till their respective dates of Voluntary Retirement or superannuation because of financial crunch.
(2.) HOWEVER , learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not intend to press the first prayer so far it relates to claim for release of one time withdrawal of the contributions of the members of the petitioner Association under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1971. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that they being under the benefit of pension scheme by virtue of an interim order as contained at Annexure 1 in S.L.P. No. 11823 -11825/97 and other analogues cases, have not exercised the option during the pendency of the said application before Hon'ble Supreme Court to be covered under the E.F.P.F, 1995 Scheme. However, because of the weak financial health of the respondents -organization these petitioners have taken voluntary retirement under the VRS Scheme floated by the respondent no.1 -Company and are claiming to avail the benefit of the E.F.P.F, 1995 in view of the fact that vires of the Scheme, 1995 have been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the final judgment reported in the case of Otis Elevator Employees' Union S.Reg and others Vs. Union of India and others rendered in (2003) 12 SCC 68. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents were insisting upon the members Association to deposit the lumpsum contribution for the periods 1995 to 2003 for availing the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1995. But, however, on account of having opted out of service after taking voluntary retirement from the Sick Company the petitioners are not in a position to deposit the lumpsum payment for the contributions for the period 1995 to 2003. In that circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Respondents -EPF Organization had also been in seisin of the same issue in respect of the employees, who had taken V.R.S/retirement from Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited. From the correspondences contained at Annexure 3 dated 29th August, 2004 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) Head Office under the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, addressed to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, it would appear that on the aforesaid issue a direction has been issued to the concerned authority to adjust the total amount to be paid from the arrears of the pension due to be paid to the individual pensioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that from a perusal of the instant communication in respect of such employees, who had opted VRS from the same respondent no.1 - Company, the EPF Organization has taken a stand to adjust the difference of the total amount to be deposited by them from the arrears of pension due to be paid to the individual pensioner. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the High Court of Chhatisgarh in the writ petition preferred by the employees of the same company had been pleased to direct the Respondents -EPF Organization in the following terms vide final judgment dated 1st February, 2012 passed in W.P. ( C) No. 1650 of 2008[SB], which are quoted hereinbelow: " Petitioners were employed with respondent No.4, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, Bhilai Unit ( in short 'HSCL') and had sought voluntary retirement pursuant to the scheme framed by the HSCL. Their grievances in the present writ petitions are that they have not been paid either family pension or the amount of CPF contribution (with contribution of the employer). (2) According to learned counsel for the respondents there was dispute about the applicability of Pension Scheme,1995 which was eventually decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2003 and now the said scheme has been made applicable. However, by the time the matter was resolved in the Supreme Court the petitioners have already retired it is said by them that since the petitioners have already withdrawn their provident fund contribution at the time of retirement they could not be granted benefit of the pension scheme, however, the petitioners have agreed to deposit their share to the pension fund as they have agreed and consented for deduction of their part of the share from the arrears of pension which they are found to be entitled and subject to filing of form 10 D. Thus according to respondents the process for giving them benefit of pension scheme is in progress. (3) It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that petitioners had already submitted duly filled in form 10 D with an undertaking but few of the forms were found to be incomplete and thus the matter is under process which shall be finalized within a reasonable time after all the petitioners submit their duly filled in for to the employer and the employer shall thereafter forward the same to the respondent no. 2. (4) In view of the above, it appears the dispute has already been resolved but for completion of formalities. (5) In view of the above, it is directed that the petitioners shall appear before the employer i.e. respondent No. 4 at Durg on 16th February, 2012 for verification and completion of all the formalities concerning filing up for 10 D (6) The respondents no.3 and 4 shall thereafter forward the form to the respondent No. 2 within a period of one month and the respondent no. 2 in turn shall thereafter complete the process within a period of two months. (7) With the above observation, the writ petitions stand disposed of. (8) If any of the grievances still survives, the petitioners are at liberty to move this Court afresh." Learned counsel for the respondents, however, on the other hand, has objected to the original prayer wherein they had sought for one time withdrawal of their contribution. In any case the petitioners are not pressing the same and in view of the stand taken by the Respondents EPF Organization as is reflected from Annexue 3 to the rejoinder and referred to hereinabove as well, it appears that the respondents EPF Organization is inclined to consider the individual claim of such employees of the respondent no.1 company in the matter of adjustment of the total amount to be deposited by them from the arrears of pension which are due to be paid to the individual pensioner.
(3.) IN these facts and circumstances, without commenting on the merits of the individual claims, the petitioners are allowed to approach the respondent no. 7, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, Kolkata for consideration of their individual claims within a period of three weeks. The individual petitioners shall be liable to complete the necessary formalities and make their applications in the prescribed format as required by the respondents authorities and thereupon their individual cases be processed in accordance with law. The respondent no. 7, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, Kolkata shall accordingly process the claim of the individual petitioners, in accordance with law and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India within a further period of sixteen weeks thereafter and grant pension, if admissible.;