Food Corporation of India vs Ram Parikshan Ram

Joymalya Bagchi, J.—The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.02.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 5432 (W) of 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellant Corporation to grant pensionary benefits to the writ petitioner by treating his option as on 25.07.1976. The writ petitioner was an employee of the appellant Corporation and he claimed that he had filled his option in prescribed form for pension-cum-gratuity scheme within the stipulated period. According to the writ petitioner, on 25th May, 1976 he was handed over the prescribed option form and he opted for pension-cum-gratuity scheme which the appropriate authority accepted on 30th June, 1977. He superannuated on 31st January, 1994. During his entire service tenure the appellant Corporation had deducted and deposited his provident fund in the general provident fund scheme which entitled him to pension and gratuity after retirement. However, after his superannuation the appellant authority rejected his prayer for pension-cum-gratuity and issued a pay order of Rs. 30,000/- only as the contribution in the contributory provident scheme. The writ petitioner therefore prayed for grant of his pensionary benefits upon superannuation under pension-cum-gratuity scheme.

In the affidavit-in-opposition, the appellant Corporation took a plea that no option had been submitted by the writ petitioner and even if the same was submitted as per the averments in the writ petition the same was a belated one.

Learned Single Judge after considering the materials on record and in view of the conduct of the appellant Corporation in deducting and depositing fund in the name of the writ petitioner in the general provident fund account during his service tenure allowed the writ petition and directed that pensionary benefits retrospectively be granted to the writ petitioner from his retirement. Learned Single Judge further directed that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 30,000/- paid to the writ petitioner under contributory provident fund scheme be deducted from such pensionary benefits in 30 equal installments.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Corporation assailed the aforesaid order on the ground that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that no option had been submitted by the writ petitioner. In fact, no option was produced before the learned Single Judge. He further submitted that in the absence of option the writ petitioner was to be treated as an employee entitled to the contributory provident fund and therefore the impugned order was liable to be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent employee has supported the order of the learned Single Judge.

We have considered the submissions of the rival parties. We find that during the service tenure of the petitioner deduction and deposit was made on his account in the general provident fund account. No explanation has been given by the appellant employer as to such conduct which shows that the respondent employee was not considered to be an employee under the contributory provident fund scheme. It is strange that after the superannuation of the employee, appellant Corporation changed its stance and granted him retiral benefits to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- only under the contributory provident fund scheme. Further no documents were placed to explain as to how the respondent employee was entitled to such a meager amount after having served for about three decades in the said establishment.

Be that as it may, bearing in mind the conduct of the appellant Corporation in treating the respondent employee as one entitled to pension-cum-gratuity scheme during his service tenure we are of the view that the appellant employer is estopped from taking a contrary stance after his retirement.

We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order under appeal. The appeal and connected application are accordingly dismissed.

Arun Mishra, C.J.

I Agree.