Telangana High Court
Dr Ashok Kumar Shavili vs The Central Provident Fund ... on 25 July, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.26035 of 2012
ORDER:
The Writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"To issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS
a) declare the action of the respondents in not sanctioning the pension and in not releasing the pension from the date of my eligibility i.e.,20.01.2000 under employees family pension scheme, 1971 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
b) Direct the respondents to sanction and release the pension in favour of the petitioner from the date of eligibility i.e.,20.01.2000 forthwith with all consequential benefits such as arrears of pension along with interest @ 18 % for the delay in sanction and release of pension under the scheme and
c) further direct the respondents to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony, hardship and needlessly thrusting this litigation on the petitioner and the said amount of compensation should be recovered from the official personal pay after fixing the accountability of the officers who are responsible for the delay in sanction and release of pension to the petitioner under the scheme and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Sri K.S.V.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.Jithender, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a Veterinary Doctor by profession and he worked as a Veterinary ::2::
Sales Representative in M/s. Hoechst India Limited. While working as Veterinary Sale Representative he joined in the Employee Family Pension Scheme,1971 on 01.04.1978 and he was assigned a registration number as MH/4544/00537. He had taken voluntary retirement on 03.08.1993 from M/s. Hoechst India Limited and the Employer paid all terminal benefits and in respect of Employees Family Pension he was directed to pursue the matter with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay. As per the Employees Provident Fund Scheme,1971 the petitioner became eligible for family pension on attaining the age of 50 years. He further submits that the petitioner submitted an application for family pension in Form-10-D, on 23.02.2000, at Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's office at Hyderabad. But the respondent authorities neither granted any pension nor given any reply to his pension claim.
4. He further submits that on 16.05.2012, the petitioner submitted detailed representation to the respondent authorities requesting them to extend the benefit as per the Scheme and the said representation is pending till date. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested this ::3::
Court to direct the respondents to consider the said representation submitted by the petitioner and pass orders as in terms of the Scheme.
5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that the respondents may be directed to consider the said representation by granting two months time.
6. In view of the above said submissions made by both the counsel, without going into the merits of the case, respondent Nos.1,2,3 and 5 are directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 16.05.2012 duly taking into consideration of the Employees Family Pension Scheme,1971 and also documents enclosed along with the said representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing.
7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ J. SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 25-07-2023 Smk