In this post we will discuss about a writ petition that was filed by a school teacher for payment of pension.
Anita Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Ors
9 January, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
CWP No. 13433 of 2016 (O&M)Date of Decision: 09.01.2018Petitioner- Anita SharmaRespondents- State of Punjab and others Petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.02.2016 passed by Director of Public Instructions (SE) and order dated 03.05.2016 passed by Education Tribunal, Punjab. Timeline of Events:1. On 01.09.1984, petitioner was appointed as Math Mistress in a Privately Managed recognized aided school.2. Government of Punjab vide Notification dated 10.02.1992 framed a scheme called as ‘Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Aided Schools Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1992’.3. The petitioner filled up option form dated 28.05.1992 for the grant of pension wherein tick marked option at Sr.No. 02 i.e. “I opt to continue under the existing contributory provident fund benefits”.4. The aforesaid scheme of 1992 was repealed vide notification dated 12.09.2003 and revived vide Notification dated 01.08.2012.5. As per Regulation 3 of 2012 scheme, it is applicable to employees of Punjab Privately Managed Recognized Aided Schools who had opted for Retirement Benefit Scheme, 1992.6. an employee who had opted for Retirement Benefit Scheme of 1992 is eligible to scheme of 2012 and petitioner wishes to avail the pension scheme of 2012 even though she had opted contributory provident fund scheme and not pension scheme 1992.7. The petitioner made representations and thereafter filed CWP No. 23068 of 2015 and this court vide order dated 30.10.2015 directed the authorities to decide representations of the petitioner who vide order dated 24.02.2016 rejected claim of the petitioner.
ALSO READ- PENSION FOR CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES LAW IN INDIA
Findings of the Court:· Present petition bereft of merits and deserves to be dismissed.· The main contention of petitioner is that she by mistake opted for CPF Scheme of 1992 and pension is right, not bounty so she should be allowed to opt for pension scheme of 2012.· The petitioner is a well qualified teacher and she had consciously opted for CPF benefit and for the said purpose, she had filed an undertaking dated 28.05.1992.· She cannot claim at this stage that she by mistake opted for CPF benefit and secondly scheme of 2012 specifically debars her so there is no ground to interfere and set aside impugned orders.· Petitioner has not challenged any regulation of Scheme of 2012 so this court cannot go beyond the scheme which is basis of claim of the petitioner. Order: This court does not find any reason to interfere and accordingly petition is dismissed.No orders are required to be passed in the miscellaneous application(s), pending if any.
ALSO READ- PAY INTEREST ON DELAY IN PENSIONARY BENEFITS
This post was written by Rashika Garg
Rest for pension related issues in one can contact service lawyer advocate in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali for CAT, AFT, High Court Chandigarh Matters.
For more info, dial 99888-17966.
