IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.132 of 2010 THE COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION Versus SAHDEO KRISHNA DAS ----------- 8. 21.12.2010. Heard Mr. Ram Shankar Pradhan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the review petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-opposite party herein. This application has been filed on behalf of the department seeking review of the judgment and order dated 8.1.2010 passed by this court in C.W.J.C.No.2799 of 2005. The writ petition in question was filed seeking direction for payment of pension in terms of the Scheme(s) framed under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The writ petition was contested by the department, inter alia, on ground that as the petitioner was neither a member of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 nor had opted to join as the member of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, there was no question of payment of pension to him. It was, however, 2 submitted by the department that if the petitioner was prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.70,780/- which was the due amount with interest calculated until 31.10.2005, in Account no. X of the Employees Provident Fund and submits form 10-D, duly filled, the department would allow him to become the member of the scheme. The offer was accepted by the petitioner. Regard being had to the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition was disposed of requiring the petitioner to deposit the principal amount together with up to date interest determined by the department and whereupon the department was required to take necessary steps in accordance with law for enrolling the petitioner as its member under the Pension Scheme in question and for making payment thereof. The admitted position is that after the disposal of the writ petition, pursuant to a direction contained in letter no.878 dated 3.5.2010 of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Accounts), Patna as 3 contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party in the present proceedings, the writ petitioner had deposited the required contribution together with up to date interest amounting to Rs.1,03,006/-. A challan in support thereof has been placed at Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. The present application for review has been preferred by the department mainly in the light of a clarification issued by the Head Office dated 23.9.2008 and a letter dated 15.2.2010 of the Deputy Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Directorate of Public Grievances (Government of India), New Delhi as contained in Annexures-2 and 3 of the review petition, inter alia, issuing a direction that the option exercised by any employee after attaining the age of sixty years, cannot be construed as a valid option. It is in this back ground that the department seeks review of the judgment and order passed by this Court which is the subject matter of the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner, 4 with reference to the various Clauses of the Employees Pension Scheme, submits that the scheme can not be extended to those employees who stood retired after obtaining the age of sixty years without exercising option and now seek to claim the benefit after considerable delay, as has happened in the present case. Learned counsel submits that it is in this back ground that the department has chosen to issue the clarifications dated 23.9.2008 and 15.2.2010. It is submitted that admittedly, the petitioner until the filing of the writ petition in question in the year 2005, never chose to exercise his option for enrolment under the Scheme and thus he would be covered by the clarification issued by the department and would not be entitled to the benefits under the pension Scheme. Learned counsel, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, seeks review of the judgment and order in question. The prayer made in the review petition is opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner-opposite party 5 who submits that these issues were already existing at the stage of the consideration of the writ petition, but the department never chose to raise the issues rather it is on the offer given by the department that the petitioner acted and has deposited the amount required by them on 11.5.2010 and in absence of there being any error apparent on the face of the record, the prayer made in the review application is fit to be rejected. I have gone through various provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and also gone through the clarificatory letters placed at Annexures-2 and 3 of the present application. The clarification restricting the benefit of exercise of option only up to attainment of age of sixty years by the employee appears to be a reasonable restriction although the same is not found in either of the provisions of the Scheme, 1995. The department in its endeavour to effectively implement and regulate the Scheme is free to issue clarifications as the ones found at Annexures-2 and 3 herein, 6 however, the clarification not being a subject matter of consideration in the writ petition, this Court would not express any opinion on the same. In any case the same having been issued on 23.9.2008, it can only have a prospective effect. The writ petition having been filed in the year 2005 came for consideration in the year 2010. Nonetheless it was to be decided in the light of the circumstances prevailing on the date of filing of the writ petition and raising of the claim by the writ petitioner. Admittedly at that stage, there was no such clarification issued by the department as contained in Annexures-2 and 3 of the present application. The clarifications issued subsequently would not cover the claim raised by the petitioner. There thus being no apparent error on the face of the record, I find no reason to review the judgment and order in question. That being the position, the review application is dismissed. However, I would hasten to add that the judgment and order under review has been 7 passed considering the circumstances prevailing in the case of the petitioner and would not be treated as a binding precedent for other cases which would require to be considered and decided on their own merits. Needless to also mention that as the writ petitioner has already deposited the amount in question, the department would not cause any delay in making the payments of the pension to the petitioner and which should be made over to him without unnecessary delay and preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J)