REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs KAMALA MUNDA

THE Provident Fund Commissioner is in appeal against the impugned order of the District Forum, Sambalpur directing them to issue a fresh sanction order in respect of family pension of the present complainant, the wife of the deceased employee under the erstwhile C.S.S.E. A further direction has been given that the P.F. Commissioner should pay interest on the amount not disbursed to the complainant.

HEARD Mr. Samantaray, the learned Counsel for the appellant. None present for the complainant. It is not disputed that the husband of the complainant died on 24.2.1990 and she was entitled to receive the family pension from that date. In the counter affidavit we find a plea has been taken that the complainant neither approached the Head Post Office at Sambalpur to receive the pension but it is only on 19.7.2000, she first contacted the Sambalpur Head Post Office with a representation for payment of the pension with arrears with effect from 1990. Mr. Samantaray has drawn our attention to the sanction order of the Commission, one in the year 1995 fixing the monthly family pension Rs. 666/- and another order in the year 1998 revising the family pension to Rs. 549/-. Both the orders were placed before the District Forum. This specifically proved that the P.F. Commissioner had sanctioned the payment but the complainant did not approach the Head Post Office to receive the pension. This we accept as correct. From the subsequent letters of the P.F. Commissioner dated 2.1.2001 addressed to the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Deputy Director of Accounts (Postal), Cuttack it is seen that since the complainant was not drawing the amount since last 5 years she was required to furnish a No Marriage Certificate from a Gazetted Officer or First Class Magistrate, etc. and other officers as noted therein. Subsequent letter of the Commissioner dated 9.4.2001 also referred to the earlier letter that the pay order has been issued with details of the pension fixed as indicated there and it is clear from that she had to receive pension at the rate of Rs. 666/- per month with effect from 25.2.1990.

With these documents we were convinced that infact the P.F. Commissioner have sanctioned the pension and they have sent the same to the Post Office and since these are the correspondences of 2000 and 2001 and subsequently she filed a case on 29.12.2000, therefore, we dispose of the case, observing that the Commissioner is not liable to pay any interest on the amount as directed by the District Forum and so far as the pension part is concerned, perhaps the complainant must have drawn the pension in the meantime since these correspondences found to be after the case was filed. We observe that in case the complainant is found not to have been paid any pension as on today, she may approach the District Forum afresh. The matter is disposed of. Appeal disposed of.