CHARU CHANDRA DASMOHAPATRA vs Central Provident Fund Commissioner

-IN this appeal, a short question : "whether the appellant is entitled for Family Pension after seeking voluntary retirement on 31. 8. 1990 and joining service again on 1. 4. 1992?" needs our consideration, in the light of the relevant facts.

THE relevant facts of the case are that the appellant - complainant joined service in Steel Authority of India Ltd. as an employee and he was continuously contributing to Provident Fund from 1971 to 1990. In the year 1990, he met with an accident and became physically disabled and he took voluntary retirement from his services on 31. 8. 1990. On 1. 4. 1992, he joined another service in M/s. Magnesites and Minerals Ltd. as Senior Manager and continued service in the said company till 10th March, 1996. He also contributed towards Employees Provident Fund and Employees Family Pension Scheme after joining the later company. After retirement he was paid only a sum of Rs. 12,048 as his provident fund but no Family Pension was disbursed. Since Family Pension was not paid, he claimed that there was deficiency on the part of the respondent. There is undisputed fact that for nine months, the complainant was neither in service nor he contributed to the Employees Provident Fund due to disability.

But, it was submitted that service should be deemed to be continued. There is no dispute that every employee who was a member of Employees Provident Fund immediately before the commencement of the EPF, is entitled for family pension depending on his option to join the scheme. It is not the case of the appellant that he opted for the scheme within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the Scheme i. e. , first day of March, 1971.

SECTION 4 (2-E) of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 indicates that : "the employees referred to in Sub-paragraph (1) who had not earlier exercised their option to join the scheme may now exercise their option to join the scheme at any time during their membership of the Employees Provident Fund. Provided that the member pays contribution which would have been diverted from the Provident Fund to the Family Pension Fund under sub-paragraph (1) of para 9 for the past period with effect from the 1st March, 1971, together with interest thereon, at the rate specified in sub-paragraph (2) of para 22 of the Scheme. "

It is again an undisputed fact that the appellant did not pay any contribution which could have been diverted from the provident fund to the family pension fund for the past period together with rate specified in sub-para (2) of para 22 of the scheme. If the member did not pay the above said contribution, it could not be said that he could have opted to join the family pension scheme. Nothing has been produced on record in this regard that the payment made from 1. 4. 1992 to 10. 3. 1996 would be sufficient compliance of proviso to para 2 (E ).

IT may further be mentioned that in so far as the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 is concerned, "past service" has been defined in Section 2 (xii) as follows : "past service" means the period of service rendered by an existing member from the date of joining Employees Family Pension Fund till the 15. 11. 1995. " If the "past service" did not continue and after break of nine months he joined another fresh service then service rendered while serving in earlier concern the Steel Authority of India could not be treated to be the past service by existing members "from the date of joining Employees'' Family Pension Scheme till 15. 11. 1995". It may further be mentioned that para 6 (b) Employees'' Pension Scheme of 1995 is subject to sub-paragraph (3) and paragraph 1. This scheme was applicable to every employee - (b) "who has been a member of the ceased Employees'' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 before the commencement of this Scheme from 16. 11. 1995. "

SINCE the appellant never opted Employees'' Family Pension Scheme and he has never been a member of this scheme before the commencement of this scheme of 16. 11. 1995, he is not covered by atleast sub-para (b) of para 6. The terms "eligible service" and "pensionable service" have also been defined in paras 9 and 10 of the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995 which read as under: 9. Determination of Eligible Service-The eligible service shall be determined as follows : (a) In the case of "new entrant" the "actual service" shall be treated as eligible service. The total actual service shall be rounded off to the nearest year. The fraction of service for six months or more shall be treated as one year and the service less than six months shall be ignored. (b) In the case of the "existing member" the aggregate of actual service and the "past service" shall be treated as eligible service.

Determination of Pensionable Service - (1) The pensionable service of the member shall be determined with reference to the contributions on his behalf in the Employees Pension Fund. (2) In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and/or who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 2 years. (Emphasis supplied)

IT may be mentioned that the "past services" for which the contribution towards family pension scheme has not been received the said period can be counted as eligible service only on receipt of the contribution thereof in the employees pension fund in terms of proviso added to para 9. Para 10 further indicates that the pensionable service of the member shall be determined with reference to the contributions on his behalf in the Employees Pension Fund. It is a fact that the appellant never opted earlier while serving with the Steel Authority of India to take advantage of the provision if we see his own representations from time-to-time, in the light of the aforesaid provisions. This would lead us to say that appellant has no case to justify our interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.