Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santosh Devi vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 24 August, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
CWP No.828 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.828 of 2011
Date of decision: 24.08.2012
Santosh Devi ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & ors. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
Mr. D.K.Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Dr. Urmil Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4.
Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
As per the averments made, husband of the petitioner died on 22.7.1999 while on duly. Thereafter, family pension was granted to the peitioner and her minor children which is being received.
It is the further case of the petitioner that the Haryana Govt. is increasing pension of the pensioners of the Board and Corporation of the Haryana Govt. whenever the rate of Dearness Allowance is increased. However, no such increase has been made in the family pension granted to the petitioner.
It is the further case of the petitioner that earlier CWP No.18105 of 2008 filed by her was disposed off by this Court by giving a direction to the respondents to consider her claim as per the legal notice (Annexure P-3) served by her. However, such representation was rejected vide orders dated 19.12.2008 and 23.1.2009. The relevant part of order dated 23.1.2009 reads thus:
CWP No.828 of 2011 2
"It is intimated that there was no family pension scheme applicably to the Corporation employees before its closure as such HSMITC did not/does not pension/family pension to its employees. The employees of the Corporation are covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme as such pension/family pension is granted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as per their rules and regulations, framed by the Central Govt. from time to time, therefore, any increase/relief in the family pension is to be sanctioned by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as per their rules. Hence HSMITC has no role to play in the matter."
Thus, the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders dated 19.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) and dated 23.1.2009 (Annexure P-5).
Upon notice, the respondents have filed written statement. The relevant para of this written statement reads thus:
"In the said speaking order i.e. Annexure P-5, it was mentioned that there was no scheme for the grant of Family Pension before the closure of the corporation. However, the ex-employees of the corporation are/were covered under the provision of Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme. As such, Pension/Family Pension is granted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as per their Rules and Regulations framed by the Central Govt. from time to time. Hence, CWP No.828 of 2011 3 the relief i.e. increase in the pension/family pension is to be sanctioned/granted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the answering respondent i.e. Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewells Corporation has no role to play in the matter."
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and other documents placed on record.
The petitioner, who was granted family pension under the provisions of Employee's Provident Fund by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, has filed the instant petition raising a grievance that the pension of the petitioner was liable to be increased as and when DA is granted but the same has been denied to her.
In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4, it has been categorically averred that prior to the closure of respondent-Corporation, there was no pension scheme and the petitioner was granted pension under the Employees Pension Scheme framed under the provisions of EPF & MP Act 1952 and the instructions of the Haryana Govt. pension schemes are not applicable to such pension.
The said fact has not been controverted.
In view of the aforesaid fact that the petitioner is being granted pension under a statutory scheme wherein no such provision has been added for the purpose of increasing the family pension as and when Dearness Allowance is granted, this Court finds no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
August 24, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE