AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Justice K. Surendra Mohan
The petitioner who is a retired employee of the Apollo Tyres complains that he has not been paid the pension due under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. According to the petitioner, he retired from service on 13.01.2001. He attained the age of 50 years on 7.03.2004. Therefore, according to the petitioner he was entitled to be paid pension from the said date, in accordance with Rule 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ''The scheme''). It is the further contention of the petitioner that though he had submitted Ext.P1, the necessary application in the prescribed form no pension has been granted to him till date. It is also submitted that, all the necessary papers have been forwarded to the 1st respondent by the 3rd respondent. Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that Ext.P1 has already been forwarded to the 1st respondent, as per Ext.P2. The counsel for the 1st respondent submits that though Ext.P1 had been received by the 1st respondent, no further action could be taken thereon for the reason that there was an error in the date of birth of the petitioner that was shown. Therefore, the papers were returned to the petitioner for correcting the error and resubmitting the same. However, the papers were not resubmitted after making the required correction. The above submission is refuted by the counsel for the petitioner who submits that the papers were not returned, as alleged.
It is to be noted that though this writ petition was filed in the year 2011 no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent till date. It is only the oral submission of the counsel when this matter is taken up today, that the pension papers were returned to the petitioner. Since it is admitted that the pension papers were initially received by the 1st respondent, in the absence of any proof or even a counter affidavit by the concerned authority stating that Ext.P1 was returned, the only presumption possible is that the application has not been so returned. In spite of the above submission, the fact remains that the petitioner has been denied the benefits of the pension scheme, all these years. It is submitted by the counsel for the 1st respondent that if the petitioner resubmits Ext.P1, the matter would be considered and necessary orders would be passed, without further delay. In view of the above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
The petitioner shall submit a fresh copy of Ext.P1 to the 3rd respondent incorporating necessary corrections therein, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
The 3rd respondent shall forward the copy of Ext.P1 so submitted by the petitioner to the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks of receipt thereof.
The 1st respondent shall consider and pass necessary orders on Ext.P1 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the corrected copy of Ext.P1 in accordance with the above directions. The 1st respondent shall also consider and pass orders on the interest payable to the petitioner for the delay in payment of pension to him, which shall be borne by the person responsible for causing such delay.