Review Petition No. 4050 of 2013. Case: Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs (Smt.) Nirmala Devi and Others. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberReview Petition No. 4050 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Sandeep Sharma, ASGI and Pankaj Negi, Adv. and For Respondents: Neeraj Maniktala, H.K.S. Thakur, Ms. Parul Negi and Varun Chandel, Advs.
JudgesV.K. Sharma, J.
IssueService Law
Judgement DateDecember 04, 2013
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

V.K. Sharma, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Records including that of the writ petition perused.

The petitioner herein (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) is seeking review of the judgment dated 1.1.2013 passed by this Court in CWP No. 2794 of 2010-C, Smt. Nirmala Devi v. State of H.P. and others, wherein the following directions were issued to respondents No, 2 and 3 in the writ petition (HRTC and the petitioner herein):--

In view of the admitted facts, the petition is allowed with a direction to respondent No. 2-HRTC to remit the said sum of ` 1348 (one thousand three hundred-forty eight) along with interest @ 9% per annum, with effect from 1970-71 onwards till the amount is remitted to respondent No. 3, within two months from today, failing which higher interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable from the due date, as above and the date of payment. On receipt of the said sum of ` 1348 (one thousand three hundred forty-eight) along with interest as above, respondent No. 3 shall take further action in the matter with regard to payment of CPF component and family pension to the petitioner, within further two months.

Mainly three grounds have been set up in the review petition. Firstly that at the time of passing the aforesaid judgment dated 1.1.2013 it escaped from the notice of this Court that "nor any amount of contribution either under the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision (sic provisions) Act, 1952 or under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 was ever remitted by the Mandi Kullu Road Transport Corporation", which averment on the face of it is not borne out of the record, as it is specifically mentioned in para 2 of the judgment dated 1.1.2013 that "However, unfortunately the employer did not remit the amount contributed by the deceased employee along with equivalent employer's share and interest to respondent No. 3-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and as a consequence on the death of the deceased employee, the petitioner did not get either any amount on account of CPF or family pension."

2. The second ground for review is that the deceased employee had not exercised the option in terms of sub-para (3) of para 4 of Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (1971 Scheme) (Annexure RS-1 of the writ file), which is to the following effect:--

(3) It shall be the duty of every employer to get the option referred to in subparagraph (1) exercised by every member to whom the option is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT