IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7083 of 2005 Purushottam Prasanna Mishra aged about 64 years son of Late Krishna Kumar Mishra, resident of village-Kumar Bajitpur, P.S.-Patepur, District- Vaishali, presently residing in Mohalla-Birla Colony, Patna. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Labour Ministry, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The Regional Manager, P.T.I. Office, 357 Dr. D.N.Road, Fort Mumbai- 406001. 3. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi. 4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai. 5. Manager, P.T.I. Office, Patna. ……..Respondents. ----------- 02. 19.03.2009 Petitioner joined as a Trained Journalist in the office of Press Trust of India Ltd (Bhasha), Patna on 4th of August, 1987. He retired on 31st of March, 1999. After his retirement the Regional Office of the Press Trust of India, Mumbai is stated to have forwarded a Bank draft of Rs. 6234/- to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Office, Mumbai for processing pension claim of the petitioner along with payments. Further clarifications were also asked for and it was furnished. When nothing came to be done, petitioner filed the present writ application for seeking a direction. Subsequently the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record the communication dated 11.11.2005 which has been issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra stating that petitioner was not eligible for 2 pension as he had attained 58 years of age on 25.03.1997 and he had not rendered ten years of service prior to that. It was the opinion of the respondent Provident Fund Authority that the petitioner is not eligible for pension under Para-10 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner however brings to my notice the provision contained in Para-9 of the said Scheme with regard to the determination of eligible service. His submission is that in terms of Para-9 (a), an employee is entitled to have a fraction of service rounded up to six months and more is to be treated as one year. If the said provision is taken into consideration, the petitioner meets the ten years obligation which is being held out against him. It is a matter which requires reconsideration as it is not evident from the communication dated 11.11.2005 issued to the petitioner whether this aspect has been considered by the respondent Provident Fund Authorities or not. The writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai that he shall consider the provision of Para-9(a) of 1995 Scheme and communicate to the petitioner to final opinion with 3 regard to the pension which he is claiming by way of the present writ application. The Court expects the decision in this regard within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. The writ application with the aforesaid observations and directions stands disposed of. Shageer (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)