National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Munna Lal & Ors.

The petitioner before this Court has worked as a Time Scale Labour with respondents, in the office of the Manager, Livestock Farm, Adhartal, Jabalpur and has retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 30.4.2010.

The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier she had preferred WP No17405/2010 on account of non-settlement and payment of her retiral dues such as gratuity, leave encashment etc., and this Court vide its order dated 21.4.2011 had directed the respondents to settle the retiral dues of the petitioner within three months. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the submission of the petitioner is that her dues have only been partly settled, which is reflected by Annexure P-5, so far as monthly pension is concerned, which was to be paid w.e.f. 1.5.2010 has not been paid to the petitioner till date. The petitioner has also relied upon the Rule 17-A of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, which reads as under: "The claim complete in all respects submitted along with the requisite documents shall be settled and benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries within 30 days from the date of its receipt by the Commissioner. If there is any deficiency in the claim, the same shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of such application. In case, the Commissioner fails without sufficient cause to settle the claim complete in all respects within 30 days, the Commissioner will be liable for delay beyond the said period and penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum may be charged on the benefit amount and the same may be deducted from the salary of the Commissioner." The aforesaid rule clearly prescribes that dues have to be settled expeditiously within the stipulated timeframe.

In reply the respondents No.2 and 3 have submitted that the petitioner could not get pension from the EPF office because she has not completed qualifying service of 10 years and as per the records of EPF office she has only worked for the period of 1 year, 4 months and 15 days. Hence, she is not entitled to get the pension from EPF office. Therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

As per the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995, which is filed along with the writ petition at page No.41, the date of joining EPF is mentioned as 1.12.2006, whereas according to the LIC Policy at page 47 of the petition, the same was issued to the petitioner C/o Live Stock Farm, JNKVV, Jabalpur, the date of commencement of the policy is said to be w.e.f. May, 1995. Therefore, a perusal of these documents reveal that the petitioner has completed more than 10 years of her service in the respondents'' department and there is no justification in denying pension on the ground that she has not completed 10 years in her service. The respondents have also not pointed out that under which rule of Pension Rules, the qualifying service is stipulated.

So far as the period of 1 year, 4 months and 15 days is concerned, it is true that the petitioner was initially inducted in the service by Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur (for short "JNKVV"), and after formation of Nanaji Deshmukh Pashu Chikitsa Vishwa Vidyalaya, the petitioner''s services were transferred in the establishment of Nanaji Deshmukh Pashu Chikitsa Vishwa Vidyalaya. As per the MOU, the services of all the concerned staff working in erstwhile JNKVV, Jabalpur were transferred to Nanaji Deshmukh Pashu Chikitsa Vishwa Vidyalaya along with all liabilities which were to be borne by Nanaji Deshmukh Pashu Chikitsa Vishwa Vidyalaya. The aforesaid facts are mentioned in the rejoinder.

Learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that considering the above, the petitioner has not impleaded the JNKVV as one of the party in the case, and in absence of non-impleadment of JNKVV as party, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, the petitioner has countered the aforesaid arguments on the ground that the other dues have been paid by the respondents taking her service to be more than 10 years, and therefore the contention of the respondents cannot be accepted.

After going through the relevant records available on record, it is clear that the petitioner''s monthly pension has wrongly been denied on account of that she has completed only 1 year 4 months and 15 days of service, whereas from the documents it is apparent that the petitioner has completed qualifying service of more than 10 years after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.4.2010.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has made out a case to get the monthly pension w.e.f. 1.5.2010 and payment of EPF. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and accordingly, it is allowed with a direction to the respondents to release the monthly pension of the petitioner w.e.f. 1.5.2010 as well as EPF payment within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.