IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.961 of 2007 SHRI INDRA DEO MISHRA, son of late Ganga Prasad Mishra, resident of village-Nabhath, P.S. Rampatti, District-Madhubani Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional/sub-Regional Office, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 3. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. ----------- 5 15.03.2010 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, learned counsel representing the Provident Fund Organisation. The petitioner was appointed as a Fitter helper in the Bihar State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Sakari, Madhubani and superannuated from service with effect from 7.6.2002. The petitioner had exercised his option under the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and was covered under the provisions of the subsequent Employees Pension Scheme 1995, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1995 Scheme’). The stipulations of the 1995 Scheme provided that such of the persons who had exercised the option under the 1971 scheme automatically 2 would stand covered under the provisions of the 1995 scheme. It is indisputed that the petitioner was originally under the 1971 Scheme and got covered under the subsequent 1995 Scheme with effect from 16.11.1995. On superannuation of the petitioner the respondent authorities of the Employees Provident Fund, calculated his pension upon interpretation of the clauses of paragraph 12 of the 1995 Scheme and fixed his pension at Rs. 325/- per month with effect from 7.6.2002, the date of retirement. The petitioner complains that in terms of the various clauses of paragraph 12 of the 1995 Scheme, he was entitled to a minimum pension of Rs. 600/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relies upon the following Bench decision of this Court namely, 2002(1) PLJR 732 (Ram Saran Bharti versus Food Corporation of India), 2003(2) PLJR 6(Nanda Ram versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others ) and 2004(4) PLJR 813 (Ms Mukta Verma versus Union of India). Learned counsel submits that these issues have already been deliberated upon, under the decision(s) aforesaid and it has been held that 3 persons who were covered under 1995 scheme would not be getting a pension lower than Rs.600/- per month. Learned counsel for the Employees Provident Fund organization and its authorities with reference to the counter affidavit filed in the case submits that in view of the Employees Pension (Amendment Scheme 2007) enforced with effect from 16.11.1995, the petitioner is not entitled to any higher pension then has been fixed by the department upon consideration of the stipulations. Learned counsel for the Department relies upon an order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 801 of 2006 dated 19.12.2007 and submits that the said writ petition involving same and similar issue was dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the validity of the Scheme. The case in hand raises different issues. The petitioner does not assail the scheme rather merely submit that the amendment which came into effect only on 15.6.2007, even if made retrospective from 16.11.1995, could not govern decided cases. He submits that the date on which the pension fixation was carried out by the authorities fixing the pension of the 4 petitioner at Rs. 325 per month, the amendment in question was not available and thus the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the authorities fixing Rs, 325/- per month has to be tested in the light of the provisions existing on the relevant date. The right created in favour of the petitioner to draw a minimum pension of Rs. 600/- per month on the date of retirement on 7.6.2002 cannot be whittled away by the amendment in question. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the judicial pronouncements taken note of in this order. In that view of the matter, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna is directed to settle the claim of the petitioner in the light of the judicial pronouncement(s) noticed in this order and pass appropriate orders refixing the pension of the petitioner @ of Rs. 600/- per month w.e.f. 7.6.2002 and pay arrears thereof, within three months of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the direction aforesaid. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )