Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar Tewari, holding brief of Sri Prakash Padia appearing for the respondents-Corporation.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to pay the family pension along with arrears since 18.1.1993 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
The facts are that the husband of the petitioner late Kailash Nath Dwivedi was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. He was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. He died on 18.1.1993. There was a dispute with respect to the payment of provident fund and the matter travelled up to this Court in Writ Petition No. 16343 of 1996 filed by the present petitioner. Vide order dated 17.05.2002 direction was issued by this Court for making payment of the amount of provident fund which was lying in deposit with this Court along with simple interest of 6% per annum. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the direction of this Court, the provident fund amount has been paid to her. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed claiming family pension with effect from the date of death of her husband.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation wherein it has been stated that in view of the provisions of Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 since the family of the deceased did not exercise an option in writing within 120 days from the notified date to become member of the fund and had not refunded within 60 days after expiry of the period of 120 days the entire amount of Corporation's contribution to the provident fund and the interest accrued thereon hence she is not entitled for payment of family pension. The pension rules came into force on 1st November, 1993 and that would be the notified date. Rule 3 (7) relevant for the purposes of the case reads as under :
"Application - These rules shall apply to employees who (7) were in the service of the Corporation during any time on or after the 1st of January, 1986 and had died while in service on or before the 31st day of October, 1993 but died before the notified date in which case their family shall be entitled to the family pension under those rules, if the family of the deceased,-
(a) exercise an option in writing within one hundred and twenty days from the notified date to become member of the Fund; and
(b) refund within sixty days after the expiry of the said period of one hundred and twenty days specified in clause (a) above, the entire amount of the Corporation's contribution to the provident fund and interest accrued thereon together with a further simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of settlement of the Provident Fund account till the date of refund of the aforesaid amount to the Corporation; or Thus, in terms of Rule 3 (7) (a) & (b) it was for the petitioner to exercise the option within the stipulated period and refund the Corporation's contribution to the Provident Fund so as to get the family pension."
A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly goes to show that after the death of an employee who was in service of the Corporation between the period 1st January, 1986 and 31st October, 1993 and has died before the notified date, their family would be entitled to the family pension provided the family exercises such option in writing within 120 days and also refunds within 60 days after the expiry of 120 days the entire amount of Corporation's contribution towards provident fund along within interest accrued thereon as also 6% simple interest per annum. There is no denial to the fact that the entire provident fund was received by the petitioner under the orders of this Court dated 17.5.2002. It has also not been denied that option as required was not exercised within the prescribed period under the Rules. On the contrary, the petitioner insisted for payment of provident fund.
In view of the above, since the case of the petitioner is not covered under the scheme provided for family pension, the relief claimed for payment of family pension is not liable to be allowed. The writ petition accordingly fails and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.1.2012 Dcs