WRIT PETITION No.14654/201”
12. 09.2012 Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Though the matter is listed for default, as has been pointed out by the office, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a retired person and is claiming the parity with the decision already rendered in the similar circumstances by this Court, the default pointed out by the office is ignored.
The petitioner who was employed in private school, which was taken over by the State Government, is claiming the benefit of grant of pension from the date, counting the period he has rendered service in the private school.
This Court in various cases has considered these aspects and in W.P.No.10240/2008 (S) [Bhola Prasad Mishra versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others]., relying the decision given in the case of C.A.Bhakhare versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.1987 MPLJ 509 this Court has said that similar benefit would be applicable in the cases of persons like petitioner.
Considered the submissions put forth by the learned Counsel for the parties in C.A.Bhakhare (supra).in which it was held by this Court : “Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant.
Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution.
This obligation of the WRIT PETITION No.14654/2012 2 Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee.
Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme.
Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount.
Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service.
Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art.
41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees.
The intention being noble has to be given full effect to.
Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Q) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law.
In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a case where the past services of a teacher were not covered by any Provident Fund Scheme.
In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled too count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits.”
In view of above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for counting the service rendered by him from 27.06.1976 to 21.09.1982 with a private school run WRIT PETITION No.14654/2012 3 by a registered Society i.e.Pushpraj Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Khutha, District Rewa and pass a suitable order within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(K.K.Trivedi) Judge Skc