caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Veena Pandey vs Union Of India on 18 November, 2021Author: Hrishikesh Roy
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy, Hrishikesh Roy
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6953 OF 2021
(Arising Out of SLP (C) No.15113 OF 2018)
VEENA PANDEY APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of claims for
pensionary benefits under the Coal Mines Pension
Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Pension
Scheme, 1998’ for short). The appellant’s husband
Ramashankar Pandey rendered service in the South
Signature Not VerifiedEastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, after being
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2021.11.18
17:00:25 IST
Reason: transferred from Bharat Coking Coal Ltd in 1999. The
employee retired on 31.05.2004 as Chief Personnel
Page 1 of 7
Manager at Bilaspur and later settled in Bhojpur,
Bihar with his family. He opted for receiving 90%
pension during his life time as provided under para
15 1(b) of the Pension Scheme, 1998 effective from
31.03.1998. Since the employee opted to receive 90%
of the total admissible amount of the pension during
his lifetime, on his death on 12.01.2011, the widow
of the pensioner became entitled to receive in lump
sum, an amount equal to 100 times his full monthly
pension, in addition to family pension. The record
shows that Rs.7091/- p.m. was sanctioned to the
employee as Basic Pension under the Pension Scheme,
1998 w.e.f 01.06.2004 and 10% of his Basic Pension
i.e Rs. 788/- p.m. was deposited with the department.
3. Following the employee’s death on 12.01.2011, as
per the Pension Scheme, 1998 the widow of the
pensioner made claim for a sum equivalent to 100
times the full monthly pension of her husband and
vide letter dated 30.09.2012, she applied for payment
of the lump sum amount in pursuance of para 15(1)(b)
read with para 15(2) of the Pension Scheme, 1998.
Page 2 of 7
4. The appellant’s representation was however
rejected. In the letter dated 22.01.2013 of the
Regional Commissioner of the Coal Mines Provident
Fund Organization (‘CMPFO’ for short) it was stated
that the pensioner had opted for payment of 90%
pension under para 15 (1)(b) of the Pension Scheme,
1998, but the aforesaid provision was abolished w.e.f
21.02.2011. It was also intimated that the 10%
surrendered amount had been refunded to all
pensioners with interest under the order dated
30.01.2012 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund
Commissioner.
5. The appellant was refunded the surrendered amount
of 10% with interest (Rs. 36,938/-) along with widow
pension arrears (Rs.12,351/-), in total Rs. 49,289/-,
whereas she claimed a higher sum under the now
abolished provisions of the Pension Scheme.
6. Aggrieved by the above stand of the employer, the
appellant moved the High Court of Patna for disbursal
of the pensionary benefits and also to quash the
Page 3 of 7
letter dated 22.01.2013 of the Regional Commissioner,
CMPFO whereunder, it had been communicated that, no
other payment is due to the appellant. Her C.W.J.C
No.9837/2014 was however dismissed as not
maintainable by the learned Single Judge on the
ground that no cause of action arose within the
territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Patna.
This order was affirmed by the Division Bench by
dismissal of the appellant’s LPA No.701/2017 with
similar observation that the services rendered by the
pensioner were outside the territorial jurisdiction
of the Patna High Court and hence the writ petition
filed by the widow of the pensioner was not
maintainable. These orders of the High Court are
impugned in this Appeal.
7. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant. Also heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, the learned
ASG appearing for the respondents.
8. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned ASG, points out from
the additional counter affidavit of respondent no. 6
Page 4 of 7
that pursuant to the administrative order dated
04.03.2011 of the Commissioner, CMPFO, the
appellant’s case was settled on 18.04.2011 and 10%
surrendered value of monthly pension along with
applicable interest thereon was refunded.
9. Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for
the appellant would however contend that the lumpsum
(100 times of full monthly pension) became payable to
the widow on the death of her husband, who,
subsequent to his retirement, had opted for the same
under the Pension Scheme. The counsel further submits
that the appellant as the widow of the employee is
suffering as she has been non suited by the court on
the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.
10. It is necessary to note that the Coal Mines
Pension Scheme, 1998 was framed as a measure of
social security for ensuring socio-economic justice
for the employees in the coal sector under the powers
conferred by Section 3-E of the Coal Mines Provident
Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948.
Page 5 of 7
11. Pension as is well known, is the deferred portion
of the compensation1 for rendering long years of
service. It is a hard-earned benefit accruing to an
employee and has been held to be in the nature of
property by this Court, in State of Jharkhand and
Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another2.
12. While considering the appellant’s case, the High
Court did not however consider her entitlement on
merit, but had dismissed both the Writ Petition and
the LPA, citing want of territorial jurisdiction. The
employment of the appellant’s husband with the
respondent employer is however not in dispute.
Nevertheless, for over a decade, the widow of the
employee is forced to litigate to secure the pension
benefits.
13. In the above peculiar circumstances of this case,
without commenting on the legality of the decision to
discontinue the said provision in the pension scheme
by the employer, as the pensioner was not alive on
1All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers’ Association & ors Vs. Union of
India & ors, (1992) Supp 1 SCC 664
2(2013) 12 SCC 210
Page 6 of 7
the date of discontinuance, we consider it
appropriate to pass necessary orders in her favor in
this proceeding itself. Resultantly, the sum due and
payable under the Pension scheme be computed and the
same is ordered to be disbursed to the appellant. The
amount earlier refunded to the appellant be adjusted
suitably during the remittance process. The
respondent/ employer should do the needful in terms
of this order, within 8 weeks from today.
14. The appeal is allowed with the above order.
Respective costs to be borne by the parties.
…………………J.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY)
……………….J.
(HRISHIKESH ROY)
New Delhi
November 18, 2021
Page 7 of 7
Comments