Service law: Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – Applicability of the Scheme floated by University – In the instant case, husband of appellant who was appointed as lecturer died during the course of employment on 24.2.1995 – During service, he had opted for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – After his death, all retiral benefits were settled and paid as per option exercised – Thereafter, respondent-University floated a scheme for teaching and non-teaching employees, who retired from the service on or after 1.4.1972 for giving them “one more chance” for exercising a “fresh option” as per the terms and conditions in the scheme – Appellant-wife of deceased employee filed writ petition before High Court for availing the benefit of the scheme – Single Judge of High Court allowed the benefit of the scheme – Division Bench, however, set aside the order of Single Judge – On appeal, held: Under the scheme, in case of an employee who had not exercised the option and retired on or after 1.4.1972, but died before exercising the option, the family is offered an opportunity to exercise the “fresh option” subject to terms and conditions – As the husband of appellant had already exercised the option prior to his death, all the benefits under the prevalent scheme were received by the family members – Hence, appellant did not have the right to exercise “fresh option” to avail the benefit one more time – Interference not warranted.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The condition No. 5 of the Scheme clearly spelt out that an employee, who retired from the service of the University, on or after 1.4.1972 have died before exercising his/her option, then his/her family shall be eligible for exercising the fresh option, giving them one more chance subject to the terms and conditions. The husband of the appellant had already exercised the option prior to his death. All the benefits in terms of the option so exercised under the prevalent Scheme have been received by the family members. In the said contingency, as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the appellant did not have right to exercise a fresh option to avail one more chance to exercise the option again. [Paras 5, 6][107-C-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.