Supreme Court of India
GEETA MISHRA versus SIDHO KANHU MURMU UNIVERSITY & OTHERS on 16 November 2021
2021 INSC 735[2021] 12 S.C.R. 103
GEETA MISHRA
v.
SIDHO KANHU MURMU UNIVERSITY & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7919 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 16, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Service law: Contributory Provident Fund Scheme –Applicability of the Scheme floated by University – In the instantcase, husband of appellant who was appointed as lecturer diedduring the course of employment on 24.2.1995 – During service,he had opted for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – After hisdeath, all retiral benefits were settled and paid as per optionexercised – Thereafter, respondent-University floated a scheme forteaching and non-teaching employees, who retired from the serviceon or after 1.4.1972 for giving them “one more chance” forexercising a “fresh option” as per the terms and conditions in thescheme – Appellant-wife of deceased employee filed writ petitionbefore High Court for availing the benefit of the scheme – SingleJudge of High Court allowed the benefit of the scheme – DivisionBench, however, set aside the order of Single Judge – On appeal,held: Under the scheme, in case of an employee who had notexercised the option and retired on or after 1.4.1972, but died beforeexercising the option, the family is offered an opportunity to exercisethe “fresh option” subject to terms and conditions – As the husbandof appellant had already exercised the option prior to his death, allthe benefits under the prevalent scheme were received by the familymembers – Hence, appellant did not have the right to exercise “freshoption” to avail the benefit one more time – Interference notwarranted.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The condition No. 5 of the Scheme clearly speltout that an employee, who retired from the service of theUniversity, on or after 1.4.1972 have died before exercising his/her option, then his/her family shall be eligible for exercising thefresh option, giving them one more chance subject to the termsand conditions. The husband of the appellant had already
Page 1 of 6
103
A
B
C
D
EF
G
H
Aexercised the option prior to his death. All the benefits in termsof the option so exercised under the prevalent Scheme have beenreceived by the family members. In the said contingency, as perthe terms and conditions of the Scheme, the appellant did nothave right to exercise a fresh option to avail one more chance toexercise the option again. [Paras 5, 6][107-C-E]BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7919 of2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2018 of the High Courtof Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No.123 of 2016.
CAditya Shankar Prasad, Sameer Kumar, Shahrukh Ahmad, SahilChowdhury, Mandeep Baisala, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rajeev Singh, Samant Singh, Kumar Arunish Singh, AbhishekVikram, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDJ. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Assailing the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the DivisionBench of the Jharkhand High Court in L.P.A. No. 123 of 2016, theappellant has filed this appeal with the prayer to set-aside the same andErestore the order dated 5.2.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge inW.P. (S) No. 4441 of 2010.
Page 2 of 6
3. The controversy in the present case is circumscribed to theapplicability of the Scheme floated by respondent-University vide letterNo. SKU/ACC/202/98 dated 30.7.1998 (for short “Scheme”). LearnedFSingle Judge held that the employees, who retired from the service ofthe University on or after 1.4.1972, if died before exercising the option,they have one more chance to exercise a fresh option, specified in thesaid Scheme. It is further held that “one more chance” to exercise the“fresh option” had been offered by the said Scheme and in the similarGcases, WP(S) No. 4452 of 2007 and WP(S) No. 4453 of 2007 decidedon 27.06.2009, the same benefit had been extended to the petitionerstherein. In the said case, L.P.A. Nos. 395 of 2009 and 397 of 2009 weredismissed. Therefore, the appellant was held entitled to the benefit ofthe Scheme. On filing the LPA by the University, the order passed by H
H
the learned Single Judge has been set-aside holding that the benefit ofthe Scheme is applicable to only those, who have not exercised his/heroption prior to death on the date so specified. In the present case, theoption was exercised by the husband of the appellant. Therefore, theappellant was not entitled to exercise the second option under the Schemeand the learned Single Judge committed an error by not extending thebenefit to the appellant. Impugning the said order, the wife of the deceasedemployee has filed this appeal.
4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record, it reveals that the husband of the appellant was appointedas Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry, Godda College, Godda. Hewas promoted to the post of Reader. He died during the course ofemployment on 24.2.1995. During service, the husband of the appellanthad opted for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. As per the option,regular deduction @ 10% from the salary was being made. After thedeath, all the retiral benefits were settled and paid as per option exercised.Thereafter the respondent- University floated a Scheme dated 30.7.1998for teaching and non- teaching employees of Sidho Kanhu MurmuUniversity, who retired from the service of the University on or after1.4.1972 for giving them “one more chance” for exercising a “freshoption” as per the terms & conditions specified in Scheme. Clause 5 ofthe Scheme is relevant for the purpose of present case, which isreproduced thus:
Page 3 of 6
“Siddhu Kanhu University, Dumka
Letter No. KU/ACC/202/98Dated 30.07.98
From : Registrar
Siddhu Kanhu University, Dumka
To:(1) Administrative Head, P.G. Centre, Dumka
(2) All Principals of constituent Colleges (Godda College,Godda) under Siddhu Kanhu University, Dumka except B.S.K. College, Barharwa and Millat College, Parsa.
Subject : Exercise of fresh option under the grant of retirementbenefit statutes.
Sir/ Madam,
I am directed to inform you that the Vice-chancellor hasbeen pleased to order dept. all teaching and non- teachingemployees of Siddhu Kanhu University and its constituent colleges A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
C
D
E
G
Page 4 of 6
H
who have joined university/ constituent colleges service prior to1.4.78 be given one more chance, if they so like exercise a freshoption for any one of the alternative schemes of the grant ofretirement benefit statues under the following terms and conditions:
A.General Provident Fund-cum Pension-cum-GratuityScheme.
B.Contributory Provident Fund-cum-Gratuity Schemein which employer’s contribution to provident fundshall be limited to 8% of pay of the employee.
C.Contributory provident fund only, in which theemployer’s contribution shall be 10% of pay of theemployee.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
“5: In the case of employees who retired from the serviceof the University on or after Ist April, 1972 but have diedbefore exercising his/her option under Article (4) of thestatute, his/her family shall be eligible for exercising theoption between the scheme provided that if the family optsfor the scheme given in scheme
A. It shall have to refund the University share ofcontributory provident fund of the deceased employees,along with interest thereon either in cash or by adjustmentsfrom the amount of gratuity or both, and in cash theemployer’s share to the contributory provident fund of thedeceased, that exceed 8% of pay of the deceased alongwith interest thereon, but then will be entitled for pension/family pension will be payable to them.
6. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
Yours faithfully,Registrar,S.K. UniversityDumka”
Page 5 of 6
5. On perusal of the scheme, it is clear that an employee, who hasnot exercised the option and retired on or after 1.4.1972, but has diedbefore exercising the option, the family has been offered an opportunityto exercise the fresh option under the Scheme of the provident fund,subject to the conditions, as specified in the Scheme for adjustment ofthe amount of gratuity with interest. The appellant had prayed for thebenefit of the said Scheme before the Writ Court, which was extendedby learned Single Judge, interpreting the expression “one more chance”and exercise “a fresh option” erroneously. The said chance for exercising“a fresh option” as one “more chance” was subject to the terms andconditions, as specified in the Scheme dated 30.7.1998. The conditionNo. 5 of the Scheme clearly spelt out that an employee, who retiredfrom the service of the University, on or after 1.4.1972 have died beforeexercising his/her option, then his/her family shall be eligible for exercisingthe fresh option, giving them one more chance subject to the terms andconditions.
6 In the present case, it is not disputed that the husband of theappellant had already exercised the option prior to his death. All thebenefits in terms of the option so exercised under the prevalent Schemehave been received by the family members. In the said contingency, asper the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the appellant did not haveright to exercise a fresh option to avail one more chance to exercise theoption again. By the impugned order, the Division Bench has rightlyinterpreted Clause 5 of the Scheme and rightly set-aside the order of thelearned Single Judge. In our view, the Division Bench has not committedany error in passing the order under challenge. Therefore, interferencein this appeal is notwarranted.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Devika Gujral
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Page 6 of 6
Loading citations and judicial treatment…