AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The grievance of the appellant is directed against an order dated 23 October, 2017 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner was not entitled to family pension.
Briefly, the husband of the appellant, one Madhusudan Hazra, was an employee of Kolkata Port Trust (KoPT) and expired on 5 September, 1994. In an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the appellant, who is the second wife of Late Madhusudan Hazra, had been informed about the retiral dues, including the money payable on account of outstanding contributory Provident Fund. Significantly, there had been prior litigation between the appellant and the first wife of Late Madhusudan Hazra, namely one Arati Hazra, which has been disposed of.
In the prior round of litigation, by an order dated August 13, 2015 in W.P. No. 28990(W) of 2013 filed by the appellant against the respondent authorities this Court had directed the respondent authorities to disburse the dues of the appellant's deceased husband in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Due to non-compliance with the above order, a contempt application had been filed by the appellant herein and the same was disposed of by an order dated June 17, 2016, which recorded that the above order had been complied with. In fact, the records reflect that the dues paid to the appellant in terms of the order dated August 13, 2015 included dues on account of the Contributory Provident Fund.
By the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge has held that the appellant is not entitled to any pension in terms of the KoPT Pension Scheme, 1988. In fact, Regulation 2(iii) of the Calcutta Port Trust Employees' (Pension) Regulations, 1988 is clear inasmuch as the Regulations would be applicable only for those employees who were appointed substantively in the service of the Board of Trustees who had either duly paid for the pension scheme or made up for those Regulations in terms of options given from time to time.
On behalf of the appellant, it is contended that there is an amount pending on account of Family Pension and the appellant has been deprived of the same.
The respondent authority submits that the Port Trust had issued several Circulars from time to time extending the time for shifting from the Contributory Provident Fund to the Non-Contributory Provident Fund. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent authorities that they have paid the entire dues of Late Madhusudan Hazra. In such circumstances, there is nothing due and payable to the appellant.
During his lifetime and tenure of the service, the Late Madhusudan Hazra had never exercised such option, which is why payments have been made to the appellant on account of the Contributory Provident Fund. No pleading to the contrary was even made by the appellant in the writ petition filed by her in which the impugned order has been passed. In such circumstances, the above Regulations are inapplicable to the deceased employee. As such, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. In view of the above, the Learned Single Judge justifiably found merit in the submissions of the respondent authorities that the appellant was not entitled to any family pension and even the case for consideration of a representation had not been made out.
We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The impugned order justifiably records that there were neither pleadings nor any evidence to demonstrate that the appellant’s husband was covered by the Non-Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Thus, there was no case made out for even consideration of the representation of the appellant for such family pension.
In view of the above, there is no enforceable legal right which the petitioner has been able to demonstrate warranting any relief as prayed for.
FMA 597 of 2021 along with the connected interlocutory application stands dismissed.