' l\\B)l‘\ 5V PETITIONER: Jf¢1.Smt. W/o Late irawati M LY Magumdaf Maéumdar, Near F C I Depot Nawagaon Road. Dhamtari. Chhattisgarh. Versus 1.The Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Through; Its commissioner. 8&9th Floor, Maw¥‘§hawan5 Cannaught Circus, Ne’w Delhi-1. 2.Food corporation o india Through: Distt. Manager; Madina Max:211 ,Kacheri chowk‘, Ra v 'r-Chhattis arh. PETITIGN UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA .“J edJnmmgu‘u : p a «an a.» u r . , \ f , XI-HC-zz ’ ~w4£uu£lS$ mm mmm 14.12.2001 : \L. Shri P.5.Késhi learnedcoun51l ‘for The pe‘l'itianer'. 5hri B.P.6up1'a learned couns i for responden‘t no.2. Shri A.S.6aharwar learned r.5‘randing Counsel for Union of India, appears for responden'l' no.1. ’ at, Heard. The ‘wri‘r pefi‘l'ioner is fhe ,wi e of la‘te Shri Mo‘lilal Mazumdar (\' i \m who died in harness on 22.9.95. ereaf‘l'er, she represenfed fhe 1 compe‘l‘em’ au-‘I’hori‘ly for granf'of family pension. If is com-ended That in facf cerfain forma‘i's :also her which were filled-up by are required in such a ma‘r‘l'er. Some-h w The ma1’1'er was nof seTfled. For 'rhe second fime some‘l’ime-in 1 98 - 99 again she was required {I ‘ ‘ro fill up forma‘fs on ‘rhe ground 1’ a‘r fhere were some changesin The formaf for This purpose. I is - conTended ThaT The said also wiTh This K requiremenT was complied sTaTemenT is supporTed by an affidaviT. AT This sTage 5hri 'Ko hi submiTs ThaT in facT iT is also r incumbenT upon The CompeTenT> uThoriTy To fill up necessary formaT for The of seTTlem‘nT of purpose family pension. According To 5hri¢Koshi iT will be Too Technic I Tooraise any objecTion'on such ‘x ’ issue. 5hri GupTa represenTing T e Food CorporaTion of India submiTs ThaT if The peTiTioner' ‘claim is founded Then The ’ 7 2 V K WW(W) WWW WWW§fseirfaER ammm cofinpefenf aufhorh‘y will consider fhe. same and whafever is found +0 be nuyable To The wrifpe‘l‘ifioner fhe e shall be paid ‘ro her. As s‘l'a'red above, Shri Koshi su mifs 1'ha1' ‘rhe requiremenfs have already been complied wi‘rh and fhe ah‘er ispending for finalisa‘rion x3 at The hands of fhe competen‘r uthori'ry. The husband of the V pe moner died abouf six year's ago In my Vlew rr Is hme Tha‘r ‘rh benefrr If any, should now b& md‘e available 1'0 the wmf pefmon r. Let fhe compeg’em' aufhor'rry e The claim of ihe wrif pefifion r wi'rhouf delay and at any ra‘re la‘rer Than Three monThs from Th daTe of receIpT of This order IT lon I am of The Vlew ThaT The p TiTIoners claim for mTeresT and o s e'rc. would clearly be es'l’abli d in The present case. r r s e Shri GupTa counsel for The F od CorporaTion of, India submi‘m ? Q i de clear Tha‘r In vuew of fhe d lay m se'rflemen‘r of fhe famlly? s To The wriT peTiTioner and iT will be unfair To deny The paymenT of es? and arrears to ‘r'he wrh‘ pe‘ri‘r ner. In my view The claim ‘of The arrears is reasonable. P ‘ “"sCerTified copy as per rules. Chief Justice Sdl- ' f. ,i .Vmee, e a .m We e r; seam—W IT peTiTioner as regards mTeresT mMaiwWC’f s a r m l