- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Zubedabegum v. Union Of India
Judicial Opinion Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, a widow of a Government servant who died in 1989, has been receiving family pension under the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971. She filed this petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent-Government to pay pension to her children under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (the 1995 Scheme). The 1995 Scheme was framed on 16-11-1995 and stated to be effective from 1-4-1993 for factories and other establishments. The dispute centers on whether the petitioner, as a beneficiary under the 1971 Scheme, became a member of the 1995 Scheme and is therefore entitled to children's pension under it.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner, a beneficiary (widow) under the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, is a "member" of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 by virtue of paragraph 6 (and the savings mentioned in paragraph 44) of the 1995 Scheme.
- Whether the 1995 Scheme, which on its face applies to employees, extends membership or benefits directly to beneficiaries of a deceased employee (such as the widow) so as to entitle them to children's pension under the 1995 Scheme.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner contended that paragraph 6 of the 1995 Scheme, together with the savings provision mentioned in paragraph 44, makes her (as a member under the 1971 Scheme) a member of the 1995 Scheme.
- On that basis, she claimed entitlement to payment of pension for her children as envisaged by the 1995 Scheme.
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents contended that neither the 1971 Scheme nor the 1995 Scheme confers membership on a beneficiary of the employee; both schemes relate to employees/workmen only.
- Accordingly, the respondents argued the petitioner cannot be a member of the 1995 Scheme and is not entitled to children's pension under it.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the text and structure of the 1995 Scheme itself. It noted:
- The 1995 Scheme came into force on 16-11-1995 and was effective from 1-4-1993 for certain establishments.
- Paragraph 1(3) states the Scheme shall apply to employees of factories and other establishments.
- Key definitions in the Scheme show focus on employees: "Eligible Members" means an employee eligible to join the Scheme; "Existing Member" refers to an existing employee who was a member of the 1971 Scheme; "Member" means an employee who becomes a member of the Employees' Pension Fund under the Scheme; and "family" is defined in terms of the wife and children of a member (i.e., family as beneficiaries).
- Paragraph 6 (Membership) lists the categories of persons to whom the Scheme applies, and each subclause (a)–(d) refers expressly to employees who meet specified conditions (for example, employees who become members of the Provident Fund schemes or who were members of the ceased 1971 Scheme).
From this textual analysis the court concluded that the 1995 Scheme is directed to employees: membership is conferred on employees meeting the conditions set out in paragraph 6. The Scheme does not make any provision for conferring membership on a beneficiary of a deceased employee under the 1971 Scheme. The petitioner, whose husband was the member and who as a widow became a beneficiary under the 1971 Scheme, therefore does not become a member of the 1995 Scheme by reason of the cited provisions.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
Implications: The direct effect is that the petitioner is not a member of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and is not entitled to claim children's pension under that Scheme on the basis of her status as a beneficiary under the 1971 Scheme. The opinion does not discuss or establish any broader precedent beyond this disposition.
V.G Palshikar, J.:— By this petition the petitioner who is widow of a Government Servant seeks mandamus directing the Respondent-Government to pay pension to her children as per the Pension Scheme of 1995. Husband of the petitioner died in 1989 and since then the petitioner is getting family pension for her.
2. Earlier Family Pension Scheme of 1971 was operative when the petitioner's husband died and family pension was paid to the petitioner under that Scheme of 1971. On 16-11-1995 the Government framed the Employees' Pension Scheme of 1995 and it became operative from that day and it was applicable to factory workers and other establishments with effect from 1-4-1993.
3. The claim of the petitioner is that by reason of para 6 of 1995 Scheme the petitioner is a member of the Scheme being member of 1971 scheme and by reason of savings mentioned in para 44 she becomes member of the new Scheme of 1995 and consequently is entitled to payment for her children as envisaged by 1995 order. This claim of the petitioner is opposed by respondents stating that she is not and cannot be a member of 1995 Scheme as both 1971 and 1995 schemes obsolete membership only to the workmen or employees of the Government and not a beneficiary of that employee.
4. We will consider in brief the contentions raised above in the light of Scheme of 1995 itself. The Employees' Pension Scheme of 1995 came into force on 16-11-1995 and was effective from 1-4-1993. In para 1(3) it is clearly stated that the Scheme shall apply to the employees of Factories and other establishments etc. Para 2 defines terms used in the Scheme. Item (v) defines who “eligible member” is. It reads as under:
“(v) “Eligible Members” means an employee who is eligible to join the Employees' Pension Scheme;”
5. Eligible member means an employee who is eligible to join the Employees' Pension Scheme. Item (vi) defines of “Existing Member” means “Existing Employee” who is member of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1971. Item (vii) defines what “family” is. According to it “family” means wife of male member and sons and daughters of member of the Employees' Pension Fund. Item (ix) defines what the member is. It reads:
“(ix) ‘Member’ means an employee who becomes a member of the Employees' Pension Fund in accordance with the provisions of this Scheme.”
6. It will thus be seen that the entire scheme is intended for the benefit of employees of the Government. The family of the employee is the beneficiary under the Scheme i.e Member of the Scheme. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that she is a member of that Scheme as per para 6. Para 6 reads as under:
“6. Membership of the Employees' Pension Scheme.— Subject to subparagraph (3) of paragraph I, the Scheme shall apply to every employee:—
(a) who on or after the 16th November, 1995, becomes a member of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 or of the Provident Funds of the Factories and other establishments exempted by the appropriate Government under section 17 of the Act, or in whose case exemption has been granted under paragraph 27 or 27-A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, from the date of such membership;
(b) who has been a member of the ceased Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 before the commencement of this Scheme from 16th November, 1995:
(c) who ceased to be a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 between 1st April, 1993 and 15th November, 1995 and opts to exercise his option under paragraph 7;
(d) who has been a member of the Employees' Provident Fund or of Provident Funds of Factories and other establishments exempted by the appropriate Government under section 17 of the Act or in whose case exemption has been granted under Paragraph 27 or 27-A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, on 15th November, 1995 but not being a member of the ceased Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 opts to exercise his option under paragraph 7.”
7. It will be seen that the emphasis in this paragraph also is of an “employee”. It speaks of every employee who has fulfilled (a), (b), (c) or (d). Each of these subclauses refer only to every employee mentioned in para 6. Therefore a plain reading of para 6 would mean that every employee who has been a member or ceased Employees' Family Pension Scheme before the commencement of this Act from 16-1-1995 shall be a member of the new Scheme. It does not anywhere make any reference to a beneficiary of 1971 Scheme. Her husband was the member and on his death she became beneficiary under that Scheme as a family member of the employee. This being the correct position the claim of the petitioner that the Scheme of 1995 is applicable to her and therefore she is entitled to a direction for payment of children's pension to her children is unsustainable. In the result therefore the petition fails and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Alert