Shri Ramveer Singh vs Food Corporation of India and Others

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Rule. With the consent of parties matte has been hard for disposal.

Original record has been produced and has been seen by me.

Case of the petitioner is that on 5.3.1962 he was appointed in the Food Department, respondent No. 2. On 1.10.1966, his services were transferred to the Food Corporation of India. In the year 1977, he was asked to furnish an option, to be treated either under CPF Scheme (Contributory Provident Fund Scheme) or GPF Scheme (General Provident Fund Scheme) in terms of requirements of Section 12(a) of the Food Corporation Act. According to the petitioner he had opted for the GPF scheme by filling an submitting an option form on 26.3.1977. According to the petition, respondent had been deducting the provident fund from his salary right up to the date of his retirement, being 31.7.2001 when the petitioner retired on the post of Assistant Manager Depot). It is averred that when in service, on 25.9.1979, petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs. 1,420/- from his GPF account. On 29.4.1985 he withdrew the amount of Rs. 2,088/- from the said account and on 20.4.1988 he withdrew a sum of Rs.10,400/- from the said account.

Orders sanctioning the withdrawal record the sanction of the competent authority under Rule 12(1) of the GPF (CS) Rules, 1960. Orders record grant of sanction for payment of amount under the GPF account of the petitioner.

On retirement, the amount which was deducted from the salary of the petitioner and credited to his GPF account, with interest accruing thereon, minus the withdrawal which petitioner had availed of during service was paid over to the petitioner. Facts aforesaid show that the respondent No.1 was covering the petitioner under G.F.S. Scheme and not under C.P.F. Scheme.

Petitioner prayed for monthly pension. It was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had opted for CPF Scheme and, Therefore, monthly pension was not to be paid to him.

Present petition was filed praying for issuance of mandamus that petitioner should be paid his monthly pension w.e.f. the date of his retirement. The petitioner also prayed for payment of gratuity and leave encashment.

The stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner had opted for CPF and, Therefore, is not entitled to pension.

The stand is patently incorrect for two reasons:

A) Firstly, it is an admitted case of the respondent that it had not been depositing the employer''s share in the CPF account. It is admitted that for employees covered by the CPF Scheme, FCI had to credit the employer''s contribution each month.

B) Secondly petitioner had been giving withdrawal from his GPF account where the amount deducted from his salary was being credited and these withdrawal were being debited to the GPF account of the petitioner.

Even otherwise, the option form dated 26.3.1977 has been produced in Court today and has been perused by me. I have noted that part of the option form which required the employee to indicate his preference for continuation under GPF has been crossed out, but the crossing out is by different ink when one compares the same, with the pen used by the petitioner where he has signed. Further, I find that while filling up the form, the petitioner had written the word ''''Singh'''' in the form and the linked is the same as the ink while signing. Ink used for crossing out is different. The case of the petitioner is that somebody has played mischief upon him. It prima facie appears to stand scrutiny from the perusal of the record.

In any case, it is not the case of the respondent that they had allotted a CPF account to the petitioner. It is also not the case of the respondent that it had been depositing the amount which was being deducted from the salary of the petitioner with a matching contribution in CPF account. The stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner was not filling up the requisite form which was required to be filled up and that is why the CPF account could not be opened in respect of the petitioner.

The conduct of the respondent evidenced by the fact that it was releasing the advances to the petitioner from his GPF account coupled with the fact that there are admittedly interpolations in the option form of the petitioner, lead me to the conclusion that the stand of the respondent is incorrect. Petitioner had given his option which has been interpolated.

The respondent is directed to forthwith release the monthly pension to the petitioner w.e.f. the date when the petitioner was superannuated together with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Under the order dated 26.5.2003, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid to the petitioner. The respondent would be entitled to make adjustment of the said amount.

The respondent is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner for non-payment of gratuity as well as leave encashment. If the same are found to be payable they would be paid to the petitioner within six weeks from today. If the respondent takes a decision that the same are not payable, reasoned decision would be communicated to the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of.