P.K. Deb, J.
1. The short point involved in this writ petition is with regard to fixation of pension to the tune of Rs. 417 in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per Sub-clause 5(a) and (b) of Clause 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, the petitioner is entitled to a minimum pension of Rs. 600 per month, if not more.
2. The petitioner was admittedly a member of the Indian Army. He served there from March 18, 1963 to August 31, 1965 and then discharged with an endorsement that he was fit for re-employment on the civil post. Accordingly, he was appointed as a watchman in the Food Corporation of India on June 22, 1976. After attaining the age of 58 years on superannuation the petitioner made various representations for grant of pensional benefits as contemplated under the said Scheme as prepared under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. But, when the grievances of the petitioner had not been redressed, he came up before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 443 of 1999. During the pendency of this writ petition, it was submitted by the Food Corporation of India that the petitioner's pension papers have been closed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. As such, that writ petition was disposed of vide order dated September 21, 1999 with a direction to the respondent to pay pension of the petitioner within a week next. Accordingly, the monthly pension of the petitioner fixed at Rs. 417 only.
3. Now, the petitioner's grievance is that as per the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, he is entitled to a minimum of Rs. 600 per month towards pension but arbitrarily the same has been fixed at Rs. 417 per month. Reliance has been placed (sic) by the petitioner's Counsel on the Sub-clause 5(a) and (b) of Clause 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner was a member of the earlier Scheme of 1971 and automatically, he became the member of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.
4. In the counter-affidavit also, it has been mentioned specifically that the petitioner's case is covered under Sub-clause 5 of Clause 12 of the said Scheme, 1995. According to the counter-affidavit filed, his case is covered only under Clause (b) of Sub-clause 5 of Clause 12 only. For proper appreciation of the submissions of both sides Sub-clause 5 of Cluase 12 is reproduced below as per Scheme of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995:
'(5) In the case of an employee who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and who has attained the age of 53 years or more on November 18, 1995, the superannuation/retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of
a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from November 16, 1995 per month or Rs. 335 per month whichever is more.
b) past service benefits provided in sub-paragraph (3) subject to the minimum of Rs. 500 per month provided the past service is 24 years. Provided further that if it is less than 24 years, the pension payable and the past service benefits shall be proportionately lesser but subject to a minimum of Rs. 255 per month.'