REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs Shanti Prasad Jain

A double tragedy emanating from one tragic incident has brought the complainant Shri Shanti Prasad Jain to the District Forum, Bijnore with the claim that family pension payable under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 be made available to the complainant because in that road accident his beloved son, Tapesh Jain and his wife Smt. Nidhi Jain, were seriously injured resulting in instantaneous death of Tapesh Jain and Nidhi Jain went in coma who expired within a few days without gaining consciousness. The claim was initially forwarded by the complainant to the authorities as intimated to him at the behest of the employees Organisation who in turn intimated the complainant that the matter was cognizable by the Meerut authorities and the pension has been sanctioned, which office may be contacted for further action. The complainant initiated the proceedings before the District Forum, Bijnore impleading Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, situated at IInd Floor, Vikash Bhawan, Civil Lines, Meerut, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), S.R.O. Cantt. Building, Pune and Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi. The District Forum has found favour with the claim registered but the appellants who are all the three opposite parties in the complaint, are aggrieved by the said order and have come up with a challenge to the very directions to pay family pension to the complainant-respondent.

MR. Udayesh Narayan Gaur, learned Counsel for the appellants has been heard at length. Sri Shanti Prasad has appeared in person who also has been heard. The entire record has been examined. Before coming to the merits of the matter, two objections raised by Mr. Gaur may be mentioned only to be rejected. The first, Bijnore Forum had no jurisdiction because the appellants did not have any branch or office and, therefore, the territorial jurisdiction was wanting. But the fact remains that on notice of the complaint, all the three opposite parties contested the matter on merits, did not raise any objection on territorial jurisdiction and have fully participated in the proceedings. Having thus looked upon the case only on merits right from the very beginning, the belated objection about so called lack of territorial jurisdiction is rejected.

Second, it is said that neither Union of India nor the erstwhile employer of late Tapesh Jain i.e., National Panasonic India Employees Provident Fund Trust was impleaded and, therefore, the complaint should fail because of non-joinder of parties. The assertion made in the complaint that late Tapesh Jain was an employee in the National Panasonic and also he was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme has not been denied at all in any of the paragraphs of the written statement filed by the appellant before the District Forum. Once these two conditions are admitted to the appellants, the feint attempt on their part to call the judgment defective on the allegations of non-joinder of parties, is a pure misconception of facts and law. The said argument is also rejected. Now merits may have to be examined about which Mr. Gaur has argued with great ability.

IN order to appreciate the arguments advanced the facts which lie in a very narrow compass may be put here. The late Tapesh Jain was employed in National Panasonic INdia as Sales Executive. His wife Smt. Nidhi Jain and he met with an accident on 10.5.1997 when they were on their car. The severity of injury sustained in the accident rendered Tapesh Jain and his wife inactive and it was noticed that while Tapesh died there, Smt. Nidhi Jain remained unconscious and died on 24.5.1997 in the hospital without gaining consciousness ever. IN paragraph 3 of the complaint, it has been specifically pleaded that late Tapesh Jain was a member of the Employees Pension Scheme,1995. Consequently, upon his death, the complainant being the father as also being the nominee appointed by the late Tapesh Jain was entitled to the family pension. It was stated that the appellant No. 1 is the disbursing authority of that pension amount while the opposite parties 1 and 2 are the authorities working under opposite party No. 3. IN para 4 of the complaint it is stated that when Tapesh joined the firm/employer whereafter he was married to Nidhi and the nomination remained in favour of the complainant unaltered even after late Tapesh Jain got married to Nidhi. The couple did not have any issue, therefore, the complainant being the father and also the nominated beneficiary is entitled to the family pension under the aforesaid Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The other relevant factor stated is that opposite party No. 2 who is the officer belonging to Pune had sanctioned the family pension and forwarded the matter to the opposite party No. 1 for onward action by its letter dated 6.12.2000. For reasons best known to the opposite party No. 1, it issued a letter dated 27.2.2001 intimated the complainant that: "This is to be intimated to you that Tapesh Jain died when his wife was alive. The death of his wife took place on 24.5.1997. If his wife would have been alive her pension may have been issued. After the death of the wife, pension is not payable to you. Your complaint proforma has been returned to the Regional Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Pune" (Translated in inglish by Commission)"

In the written statement the facts stated above which have been extracted verbatim from the complainant, have not been denied except that the letter of the Pune authorities has been interpreted to be not an order directing payment of pension.

THE principal objection raised through the written statement was that since Smt. Nidhi was alive till 24.5.1997 while her husband had died on 10.5.1997 and further that their marriage took place after the nomination was made in the papers by late Tapesh Jain and by effect of the law, the said nomination coming to an end automatically, no family pension under any scheme is payable to the complainant. The aforesaid narration existing in the written statement has been dealt with at length by Mr. Gaur with reference to the relevant provisions in the Act which have to be considered now to see whether the complainant is right in claiming the pension benefit as father/nominee or that he has lost all case to get the family pension in spite of the double tragedy which he has been forced by circumstances to face in the old age that he has drifted himself in by passage of time. Mr. Gaur has referred to the definition of family as is found in the Employees Pension Scheme,1995. Sri Shanti Prasad Jain has relied upon the expression pension while both of them have relied upon the Sections 16(5)(a) and (5)(aa). The two definitions and two sub-sections are quoted below for ready references: "Section-2. Definitions (vii) ''Family'' means: (a) wife in the case of the male member of the Employees'' Pension Fund; (b) husband in the case of female member of the Employee''s Pension Fund; and (c) sons and2 (***) daughters of a member of the Employees'' Pension Fund; Explanation-The expressions "sons" and "daughters" shall include children (legally adopted by the member) (viii) ''Pension'' means the pension payable under the Employees'' Pension Scheme and also includes the family pension admissible and payable under the Employee''s Family Pension Scheme, 1971 immediately preceding the commencement of the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995 with effect from 16th November, 1995. Section-16(5)(a) A member who is not married or who does not have any living spouse and/or an eligible child may nominate a person to receive benefits as laid down hereinafter provided that in the event of his/her acquiring a family subsequently the nomination so made shall become void. In the event of death of the member such a nominee shall be entitled to receive a monthly pension equal to the monthly widow pension as admissible under Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause (a) Sub-paragraph (2). Section-16(5)(aa) If a member dies leaving behind no spouse and/or an eligible child falling within the definition of family and no nomination by such deceased member exists, the widow pension shall be paid under Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-paragraph (2) either to dependent father or dependent mother as the case may be. On grant of pension to such dependent father and in the event of death of the father pensioner, the admissible pension shall be extended to the surviving mother life long."

IN view of what the provisions say, there cannot be any doubt that by language used in 5(a) of Section 16 the nomination in favour of any one made by the member of the fund becomes void nor existent after marriage of the member. To that extent no objection can be taken to the arguments raised by Mr. Gaur that the nomination in favour of Sri Shanti Prasad Jain by his son when he was unmarried looses significance after the late Tapesh Jain had married Nidhi, but that is not the end of the matter.

BEFORE discussion the import emerging from Section 16(5)(aa), the manner of the death of both the fateless individuals falling a prey to the death scheme of nature, must be renarrated. Paragraph 2 of the complaint narrates that in the accident on 10.5.1997 the late Tapesh Jain and Smt. Nidhi Jain sustained severe injuries. Both lost consciousness. Late Tapesh Jain succumbed soon and thereafter while Nidhi Jain was only clinically alive till 24.5.1997 but she never gained consciousness after the accident and, therefore, was biologically dead along with her beloved husband on 10.5.1997. Mr. Gaur frantically argued that the gap of about 14 days would entitle the wife to gain the Employees'' Pension Scheme benefit and, therefore, since Smt. Nidhi Jain could get the pension benefit for the period she was alive i.e., between 10.5.1997 and 24.5.1997, all rights to the father, if any, stood extinguished. Sri Shanti Prasad Jain on the other hand argued that who was to claim the benefits under the Employees Pension Scheme,1995 as Smt. Nidhi Jain widow of late Tapesh Jain remained closest to death for 14 days before she breathed her last? In order to judge the respective arguments, it may be pointed out that the beneficial, enactment known as Employees'' Provident Fund Act and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 has come to be passed by the Parliament "to provide for the institution of Provident Fund, Pension Fund and Deposit Linked Insurance Fund for employees in factories and other establishment". While there cannot be any doubt that in the definition of family as it exists in Section 2(vii) father or mother may not be included, but when it comes to examining the provisions contained in Section 16(5)(aa) which has been quoted above, two specific provisions would permit Sri Shanti Prasad Jain to get the benefits payable under the aforesaid scheme. Firstly, on the facts of the instant case, late Tapesh Jain cannot be said to have died leaving behind a spouse. The Legislature''s intention must be taken to be spouse entitled to and able to get the pension. Since here admittedly Smt. Nidhi Jain never gained consciousness and succumbed to the injury sustained to her beloved husband (sic), the time gap of 14 days in between cannot and should not be permitted to be interpreted as entitling Smt. Nidhi Jain only to the pension benefit.

Other connected angle of looking to the facts of the instant case is that though the nomination may have come to an end after Tapesh Jain and Nidhi Jain were married and, therefore, the mandate contained in Section 16(5)(aa) that "no nomination by such deceased member exists" stood operating and further mandate that "window pension shall be paid under Sub-clauses 5(i) and (ii) of Clause (a) of sub-paragraph (2) either to dependent father or dependent mother as the case may be" occupied the field and the complainant became legitimately entitled to claim the pension under this provision due to the death of the son and the daughter-in-law in the same accident. In fact, Section 16(5)(aa) creates a special right on the dependant "father", which the complainant admittedly is.

THE aforesaid analysis leaves no manner of doubt that Sri Shanti Prasad Jain was fully entitled to the claim benefits which the widow could have claimed and, therefore, the District Forum has rightly upheld the reliefs and granted decree in favour of the complainant. No other point has been argued.

IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.