NANDU SINGH Vs. ASSTT MANAGER FCI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Food Corporation of India, learned counsel for the respondent Provident Fund Commissioner and perused the record. By means of the present writ petition, the prayer is to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 6 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to grant superannuation pension to the petitioner from 30.4.2001 along with 18% interest on delayed payments. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in the office of respondent no. 3 on 26.5.1978 as Watchman and joined his duties on 3.6.1978. During the tenure of his service, the petitioner was asked for giving option either to avail pensionary benefits after retirement or to attain the amount under the scheme of one time settlement on 30.5.2000. The petitioner was allotted C.P.F. No. 20893 and F.P.F. No. 63709. The petitioner opted for pension after retirement which had to be accumulated on the date of retirement, i.e., 30.4.2001. The petitioner fulfilled all the formalities for his pension in the office of Assistant Manager (Pension), Food Corporation of India, District Office, Moradabad but when no pensionary benefits were given to the petitioner then present petition was filed. Even earlier, the writ petitions were filed and this is the third writ petition. First writ petition was filed as writ petition no. 19345 of 2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.5.2004 and the second writ petition as writ petition no. 22764 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.9.2010 directing the respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to decide the claim of the petitioner regarding pension. However, when pension was not paid in spite of repeated representation then the present writ petition was filed. When earlier contempt petition was filed then it was informed by the respondent no. 4 that the District Manager, Moradabad has already sent papers to the Manager for the purpose of fixing the amount of pension and it was submitted that all retiral benefits were paid except the amount of pension which was to be fixed by the General Manager (North). Now by filing Short Counter Affidavit, it was informed that the pension of the petitioner had been settled upto 2011 and arrears amounting to Rs. 65,500/- and Rs. 7602/- had already been released and sent to the petitioner's banker for making payment through his bank account on 8.9.2011. No interest has been paid to the petitioner regarding delay in payment of pension, though he was entitled for payment of interest also. The date of superannuation of the petitioner was 30.4.2001 hence he is entitled for pension from the month of May, 2001. When the option was asked, the petitioner opted for pension after retirement and earlier the amount which was withdrawn by the petitioner, he was asked to return and the same was returned to the respondent's office and as such the direction be issued for payment of the interest from May, 2001 to November, 2012.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent Food Corporation of India and Provident Fund Commissioner opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that when the formalities were completed, the pension was paid. Sri N.P. Singh, Counsel for the Food Corporation of India submitted that the prayer is only against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief against the Food Corporation of India. He also submitted that after retirement of the petitioner, the pension papers were forwarded by the District Office to its higher authorities on 3.7.2002 and the Head Office by letter dated 13.9.2002 forwarded these pension papers to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who maintain employee's pension fund under the scheme. A sum of Rs. 27,600/- had been released to the petitioner towards his pensionary benefits by cheque dated 11.10.2002 which had been encashed by him on 6.11.2002. Thus his alleged claim for monthly pension is barred. However, the claim of pension has to be considered by the Provident Fund Commissioner through his competent authority.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner submitted that by letter dated 9.5.2012, the office of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Bareilly, has already written to the petitioner intimating that his claim for pension has been settled and the same has been sent to the petitioner's bank for making payment through the petitioner's bank account. The pension payment order was prepared on 8.10.2011 and arrears for the period 29.1.2000 to 31.8.2011 amounting to Rs. 65,500/- after making adjustments of balance amount Rs. 7602/- was released in favour of the petitioner. As far as the payment of pension from January, 2012 onwards is concerned, the petitioner was required to submit 'life certificate' which was not submitted by him, hence, further pension could not be paid to him. Hence, now the petitioner is not entitled for any further relief. He further submitted that the pension claim was received in the office of the respondent on 7.9.2011 and immediately after receipt of the claim, the same was processed by the answering respondent. It was also submitted that the petitioner had claimed to withdrawal benefits under the scheme amounting to Rs. 27,600/- which was released by the department on 18.10.2002 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner had to return a sum of Rs. 54,082/- on account of contribution as well as the interest @ 8.5 % to become eligible for getting pension under the scheme, however, the petitioner refunded Rs. 46,801/- to the answering respondent hence there was a balance amount of Rs. 7181/- to be paid by the petitioner which was adjusted when the arrears of pension was released in his favour.