Kerala High Court
C.R.Sarada vs M/S.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 7 February, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/14TH KARTHIKA 1934
WP(C).No. 18179 of 2008 (L)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
C.R.SARADA, W/O.LATE P.S.RAGHAVAN,
(TANK TRUCK DRIVER IN THE WEST HILL DEPT OF IOC)
CHITTATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUTHUVARA P.O.PUZHAKKAL
TRICHUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
SOUTHERN REGION, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, C-39
NUNGAMPAKKAM ROAD, MADRAS 400034
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY DIRECTOR (HR)
2. CHIEF INDUSTRIAL MANAGER,
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., OIL BHAVAN, C-39
NUNGAMPAKKAM ROAD, MADRAS 400034.
R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
RR BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SU/-
WP(C).No. 18179 of 2008 (L)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1(A): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
P1(B): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
P1(C): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
P1(D): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
P1(E): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
P1(F): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
P1(G): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
P1(H): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
P2: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE
HR/ER/1201/CC DATED 7-2-2007 DISMISSING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
SU/-
B.P.RAY,J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) .No.18179 of 2008
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this 05th day of November, 2012
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:
"i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders quashing the original of Ext.P2.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding the respondents to consider the request made by the petitioner for according the benefits of superannuation benefit fund scheme (SBF scheme) to the petitioner irrespective of the fact that she exercised the third option under the above scheme and consider the petitioner for giving the benefits under the first and second option under the SBF scheme."
2. Petitioner's husband was an employee of the Indian Oil Corporation. He died while he was in service. The petitioner submitted a request to provide employment for her son instead of claiming other benefits as per the superannuation benefit pension scheme of the Indian Oil Corporation. Under the said scheme, the dependent spouse within six months from the date of death of the employee can opt for one on the three options provided herein below:
W.P.(C) .No.18179 of 2008 2
"1) Payments of monthly recurring superannuation benefit calculated as of 32 years of service, irrespective of actual length of service at the time of demise of employee, which is 40% of the last drawn salary (Basic + DA) shall be payable for a guaranteed period of 15 years of lifetime of the spouse whichever is longer;
2) payment of full salary (Basic pay plus DA) last drawn by the employee till the notional date on which the employee would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation subject to the nominee depositing full PF accumulation, gratuity and amounts receivable towards leave encashment;
3) Employment of a suitable and eligible dependent son/daughter of the deceased subject to the dependent son/daughter possessing the prescribed qualification and fulfilling the job specifications and an application being made within six months from the date of death of the employee. A spouse exercising the third option is also eligible to the benefits accruing under the SBF Scheme based on the actual years of service rendered by the deceased employee for a guaranteed period of fifteen years or her lifetime whichever is longer. The SBF Scheme also categorically provides that an option among the three once exercised shall be final and no change shall be permissible."
3. The petitioner opted for the third one. However on finding that the petitioner's son could not attain the minimum educational qualification of SSLC in order to get employment, the respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner. The respondents' contention is that once the petitioner had exercised her option, it is impossible to consider the petitioner for the other two options that is available under the SBF scheme, which is impugned in this writ petition.
4. In my considered view, it is a benevolent scheme operated through a trust for providing social security on W.P.(C) .No.18179 of 2008 3 retirement, death or permanent total disablement. Therefore, the best benefit which is available should be extended to the petitioner instead of giving strict adherence to the rules. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I set aside Ext.P2 and remit the matter to the 2nd respondent either to grant option 1 or option 2 to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The 2nd respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically instead of giving strict adherence to the rules since the rules are made for the benefit of the employees. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
B.P.RAY, JUDGE su/-