Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The sole thrust of the pleadings in this Review Application is that the Tribunal has erroneously held that the applicant has been a beneficiary of contributory provident fund (CPF), to which regular contributions have been made by the respondent. It is further stated that the Tribunal's order mentions that National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) is not a pensionable organization. It is stated that these observations of the Tribunal are without any pleadings to that effect.

4. The applicant has not produced any document to prove that he is not a CPF beneficiary and that NHAI is a pensionable organization. Mere submission of an affidavit by a contesting party cannot be taken on its face value in the absence of documentary proofs to that effect. During the course of arguments in the O.A., learned counsel for respondent had clearly stated that the applicant is a CPF beneficiary and NHAI is a non-pensionable organization. Hence, it would be incorrect on the part of the review applicant to say that the observations to that effect made in the order dated 13.12.2017 do not have any basis. Otherwise also, it is well known that NHAI is a non-pensionable organization.