LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.895 OF 2007 (Against the order dated 31.01.2007 passed in CWJC No. 2273 of 2005) 1. MANKI DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE GIRDHARI ROY (EX. H/L OF GANG NO.-3 F.C.I. CHAPRA) RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-DAULATGANJ, P.S. BHAGWAN BAZAR, P.O. CHAPRA, DISTRICT- SARAN, PIN -841301 2. SACHIN KUMAR @ ANIL KUMAR ( MINOR ) S/O LATE. GIRDHARI ROY, UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS MOTHER-MANKI DEVI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-DAULATGANJ, P.S. BHAGWAN BAZAR, P.O. CHAPRA, DISTRICT-SARAN, PIN – 841301. ……………………………APPELLANTS Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA. 3. THE DISTRICT MANAGER FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT-OFFICE- CHAPRA. 4. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEE’S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, PATNA. 5. GITA DEVI, D/O LATE GIRDHARI RAY, R/O MOHALLA-DAULATGANJ, POLICE STATION- BHAGWAN BAZAR, P.O. CHAPRA , DISTRICT- SARAN. PIN-841301 W/O PARMA RAI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILLAGE-SAMARIYA BRAMHA ASTHAN RAVILGANJ, POLICE STATION- REVILGANJ, DISTRICT-SARAN. 2 ……………………. RESPONDENTS For the Appellant: Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary For the F.C.I. Mr. P. Tekriwal For Respondent No. 4 (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner: Mr. Jai Prakash Verma P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Shiva Kirti Singh, Hemant Kumar Srivastava,JJ. Heard the parties. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by order dated 31.01.2007 whereby writ petition preferred by them bearing CWJC No. 2273 of 2005 has been disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the Food Corporation of India as also the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to pay the retiral dues of the deceased- employee who was husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2, including the family pension in accordance with law not only to the two appellants but also to respondents No. 5 & 6 who are two daughters of the husband of the appellant No. 1 from his first wife who pre-deceased him. 3. According to learned counsel for the appellants there should have been no direction for payment of retiral dues from family pension as per share of respondents No. 5 & 6 as per law. In respect of retiral 3 dues, it has been submitted that payment should be made only to the nominee and not to other persons entitled to a share in the state of the deceased- employee. In respect of family pension, a submission was advanced on the basis of provisions in Clause 16 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 that monthly children pension which is part of family pension is payable only till the children attain the age of 25 years whereas the monthly widow pension is payable to the widow till her death or re-marriage. 4. Through a catena of decisions, this court has already held that a nominee only has the privilege of receiving the retiral dues but in case of dispute, such dues have to be apportioned between the claimants as per their share. Hence, we find no good reason to interfere with the direction to pay the retiral dues not only to the appellants but also to respondents No. 5 & 6 as per their share. 5. So far as family pension is concerned, from clause-16 of the Scheme noticed above, it is clear that case of the widow, appellant No. 1 stand on a different footing whereas case of appellant No. 2 and respondents No. 5 & 6, all three being children of the deceased-employee stands on different footing. There is already a direction in the order under appeal to pay the family pension in accordance with law not only to writ 4 petitioners (appellants herein) but also to respondents No. 5 & 6. That part also does not require any interference. It is clarified that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall ensure that family pension i.e. monthly children pension is paid to the appellant No. 2 and respondents No. 5 & 6, if they are found entitled to the same in accordance with the law and the provisions in the scheme. The dues on account of family pension i.e., monthly widow pension and monthly children pension, calculated in accordance with law and also current monthly pension to those entitled for the same must be paid within a period of three months from today. 6. The authorities of the Food Corporation of India shall also cooperate in the matter and furnish any information required by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner promptly and within four weeks of asking of the commissioner. Now when the dispute has been settled, the appellants are expected to sign the required proforma or application forms as per request of the corporation without any delay. Patna High Court, The 23rd day of September,2010 NAFR/AKV/- (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) ( Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)