State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors Vs. Joginder Nath Monga
[1995] INSC 708 (20
November 1995)
Agrawal, S.C. (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J) G.B. Pattanaik (J) S.C. Agrawal,
J. :
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 8 1995 SCALE (6)481
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
This
appeal raises a short question whether Dr. [Smt.] Satyawati Monga, wife of the
respondent, was entitled to the benefit under the Madhya Pradesh Employees
Group Insurance Scheme, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as `the 1985 Scheme'].
Consequent
to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, the Government of Madhya
Pradesh introduced the Government Servants Family Benefit Fund Scheme in 1974
[hereinafter referred to as `the 1974 Scheme'] which covered employees
belonging to Classes I to IV. The employees falling in Class I were required to
contribute Rs. 30/- per month as contribution towards the said scheme till
retirement and on retirement or death they were entitled to the payment of Rs.
30,000/-. The 1974 Scheme was replaced by the 1985 Scheme with effect from
June, 1985 by notification dated March 27, 1985. Under the 1985 Scheme the amount of contribution was
raised for Class I employees from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 80/- and the benefit
available under the scheme was increased from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 80,000/-. Dr.
[Smt.] Satyawati Monga was employed as Professor of Pathology in G.R. Medical College at Gwalior. She was due to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation on September
1, 1987 but before
that date she died on December
14, 1986.
The
respondent was paid the death-cum-retirement benefit as well as the arrears of
pension on February 6,
1988 and the amount
under the General Provident Fund on February 25, 1988. By way of Family Insurance benefit
a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid to the respondent on February 25, 1988. He filed the writ petition [Misc. Petition No. 106/90]
giving rise to this appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh wherein he
claimed interest on delayed payment of retrial benefits in respect of his
deceased wife and also claimed that the deceased wife of the respondent was
covered by the 1985 Scheme and a sum of Rs. 80,000/- was payable by way of
Family Insurance benefit instead of Rs. 30,000/- that was paid to him. The said
writ petition was contested by the appellants who submitted that the 1985
Scheme was not applicable in the case of the deceased wife of the respondent
because during her life time she had not opted for the 1985 scheme and she had
not started making contribution at the enhanced rate of Rs. 80/- under the `985
Scheme and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- alone was payable in accordance
with the 1974 Scheme.
By the
impugned judgment dated November
5, 1992, the High
Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and has directed
that interest was payable on the delayed payment of the retrial benefits. As
regards the Family Insurance benefit the High Court has held that the
respondent is entitled to receive benefit in terms of the 1985 Scheme. The High
Court has placed reliance on para 3 (d) of the notification dated March 27, 1985 whereby the 1985 Scheme was
introduced. The High Court has directed that additional amount of Rs.50,000/-
should be paid to the respondent and that interest should be paid @ 18% p.a. on
the delayed payment computable from the expiry of two months from the date of
death of the deceased wife of the respondent till the actual payment. Although
no objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the
writ petition for the reason that the State Administrative Tribunal had been
constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, was raised by the
appellants, the High Court has dealt with the said question and has held that
the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition because the
respondent was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the State
Administrative Tribunal in terms of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act.
Ms.
Kitty Kumarmangalam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has
confined her submissions to the question regarding applicability of the 1985
Scheme to the deceased wife of the respondent. We, therefore, do not propose to
go into the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ
petition.
The
following reason was given for denying the benefit under the 1985 Scheme in the
letter dated July 7,
1988 from the Dean, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior to the respondent:
"Regarding
family Benefit Fund, I have to inform you that vide Finance Department Memo No.
521-I/58/B/3-Four 85 Bhopal dated August 27, 1985, Late
Dr. [Smt.] S. Monga
being over 50 years of age, should have exercised an option for increasing her
contribution of Family Insurance Fund from Rs.30/- to Rs.80/- unfortunately Dr.
[Smt.] S.Monga did not think it wise to exercise this option.
Instead
she desired to continue an option of Rs.30/-. Therefore, she was entitled to
get Rs.30,000/- after her death".
The
same stand was taken in the return to the writ petition that was filed on
behalf of the appellants before the High Court and it is stated :
"d)
All the employees who are members of the present Family Benefit Fund Scheme
shall be members of the new Scheme compulsorily. However, present members of
the Family Benefit Fund Scheme, who have completed 50 years of age, may opt to
remain in the old scheme of Family Benefit Fund. For this purpose they will
have to give their options within the prescribed time limit and the options so
given will be pasted in their service books to make the matter abundantly clear
on a permanent basis." In the said return reliance was also placed on para
3(d) of the notification dated March 27, 1985
which reads as under :
"This
way it is clear that Dr. [Smt.] S. Monga did not wish to become the member of
the New Scheme and therefore she did not take pains to submit the option,
within due time, which was essential for the employees who were above 50 years.
This
is evident from the option form for Rs.30/- which was submitted by her. A copy
of the said option form is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R/4.
Hence
the respondent No. 3 cannot be blamed for not including the name of
petitioner's wife under new Scheme of Group Insurance Scheme. Therefore, the
prayer for payment of Rs.50,000/- of the petitioner is baseless and without
substance, hence deserves to be dismissed." The High Court has held that
under par 3(d) of the notification dated March 27, 1985, it was not necessary
to exercise an option to become member of the 1985 Scheme and that employees
who were members of the 1974 Scheme were to become members of the 1985 Scheme
compulsorily.. The said view of the High Court is based on the wordings of para
3(d) wherein it is clearly indicated that all the employees who are members of
the present Family Benefit Fund Scheme shall be members of the 1985 Scheme
compulsorily. It was, however, provided that the present members of Family
Benefit Fund Scheme, who had completed 50 years of age may opt to remain in the
1974 Scheme of Family Benefit Fund and for that purpose they were required to
give their options within the prescribed time limit. It is not the case of the
appellants that Dr. [Smt.] Satyawati Monga had submitted her option to remain
in the 1974 Scheme and that she did not want to be governed by the 1985 Scheme.
The mere fact that she had not started contributing at the enhanced rate of Rs.80/-
as per the 1985 Scheme by itself cannot mean that she had exercised an option
to remain in the 1974 Scheme and not to be governed by the 1985 Scheme.
Ms.
Kitty Kumarmangalam has, however, put forward a different case, namely, that para
3(d) of the notification dated March 27, 1985
does not correctly reflect the position regarding the applicability of the 1985
Scheme to employees who had crossed 50 years of age on the date of coming into
force of the 1985 Scheme. The submission of Ms. Kumarmangalam is that the 1985
Scheme has no application to employees who had crossed 50 years of age on the
date of introduction of the 1985 Scheme, i.e., June 1, 1985, and in this
connection she has placed reliance on para 3 of the 1985 Scheme. Shri S.K.
Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has, however contested
this position and his submission is that para 3 of the 1985 Scheme, when read
with para 4 (2) of the Scheme cannot be construed to mean that the 1985 Scheme
does not apply to employees who had attained the age of 50 years on June 1,
1985. Since this question was snot raised by the appellants before the High
Court and the stand taken by the appellants before the High Court was only that
the deceased wife of the respondent was not governed by the 1985 Scheme as she
had not exercised the option to be governed by that Scheme and that stand has
been rightly negatived by the High Court on basis of the wording of para 3(d)
of the notification, we are not going into the submission urged by Ms. Kumarmangalam
for the first time in this Court that para 3(d) of the notification is not in
consonance with para 3 of 1985 Scheme and that the 1985 Scheme does not apply
to employees who had attained the age of 50 years on June 1, 1985. The said
question is left open.
In the
result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. But there will be no
order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2