G. Ponnusamy vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd.

M. Chockalingam, J.—This petition has been brought forth by the petitioner herein seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the

proceedings in No.TN/TR/10290/ Pension/SRO-TRY/2000, dated 12.9.2000 and for further direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the

arrears of pension with interest at 12% per annum payable to the petitioner from 1.8.1998 till April 2000.

From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it could be seen that the first respondent was working under the 3rd

respondent as Selection Grade Worker; that he attained superannuation on 31.7.98 on the basis of the date of birth as 6.7.1940; that he joined the

3rd respondent on 9.7.1979 and thus, he has put in 19 years of service in the 3rd respondent company; that subsequent to the retirement from

service, on 5.2.1999, the 3rd respondent sent an application to the first respondent for grant of pension in Account No.TN/12173/1971 w.e.f.

9.5.2000 on the basis that the petitioner''s date of birth was 6.7.1946. Thus, it would be clear that the date of birth reported is 6.7.1946 while the

actual date of birth is 6.7.1940. Hence, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition to grant the above relief.

This writ petition is opposed by the first and second respondents stating that the petitioner joined in Employees Provident Fund/ Family Pension

fund scheme with effect from 1.12.1981 and was contributing under the said Account upto 31.3.1998. Consequent to the centralisation of all

branches of Tamil Nadu Minerals at Chennai with effect from 1.4.1998, the Provident Fund accumulations were transferred to Employees

Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Madras where he was allotted a fresh Provident Fund Account Number TN/12173/971. At the

time of enrolment as Provident Fund Member under the Account No.TN/12181/43, the employer has furnished the age of the petitioner in Form 9

as 35 years on 1.12.1981 and the petitioner has also executed a valid nomination on 20.9.1982 wherein the age of the petitioner was furnished as

35 years and the year of birth is reckoned as 1.9.1947 which tallies with the date of birth as 6.7.1946 as furnished in the input date sheet and claim

Form 10-D received from Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Chennai and also the age furnished in Form 9 by the

employer at the time of joining. Hence, the reduced pension was sanctioned taking into account the date of birth as 6.7.1946 from 9.5.2000

onwards. Therefore, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded correctly as 6.7.1946 as stated by the petitioner. Hence, the statement of the

petitioner that his date of birth is 6.7.1940 is an after thought which has got to be rejected by this Court.

After careful consideration of the available materials, it is seen that it is not in controversy that the petitioner was employed with the 3rd

respondent employer as Selection Grade worker. It is also not in dispute that he attained superannuation on 30.7.1998 and after his retirement the

pension has been calculated by the 2nd respondent with effect from 9.5.2000 on the basis of date of birth as 6.7.1946 but it was not so. Hence, a

direction has got to be issued. Now at this juncture, the contentions of the respondents side is that at the time of enrolment as Provident Fund

member, the employer furnished the age of the petitioner as 35 years on 1.12.1981 and the petitioner has also given the valid nomination form on

20.9.1982 wherein he has stated his age as 35 years. It is pertinent point out that nowhere the employer or employee/the petitioner had stated the

date of birth as 6.7.1946 and apart that it is not in dispute that the petitioner had attained superannuation on 31.7.1998 which should have been

made only on the basis of his date of birth as 6.7.1940 and definitely not based on the date of birth as 6.7.1946. If the argument putforth by the

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the date of birth of the petitioner is 6.7.1946 is accepted, the petitioner could not have retired on

31.7.1998 by attaining the age of superannuation. It is not the case of the first and 2nd respondents that the petitioner has not retired on

31.7.1998. This would be indicative of the fact that the petitioner had retired on 31.7.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation and his date of

birth is only 6.7.1940 and not 6.7.1946. The petitioner has not given his date of birth as 6.7.1946 but he has given his age as 35 years which was

a mistake that had crept in. Therefore, taking advantage of the mistake that had crept in while stating the age of the petitioner as 35 years, where

no specific date of birth has been given, the 1st and 2nd respondents could not have come to the conclusion that the date of birth of the petitioner

is 6.7.1946. Hence, it is a fit case where the reliefs sought for have got to be granted in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.9.2000 is quashed and the direction asked for by the

petitioner is accordingly issued, leaving the parties to bear their costs.