Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7919 OF 2021
( ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 9393 OF 2019 )
GEETA MISHRA ….APPELLANT
VERSUS
SIDHO KANHU MURMU UNIVERSITY & OTHERS. …. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G E M E N T
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. Assailing the order dated 29.10.2018 passed by the Division
Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in L.P.A. No. 123 of 2016, the
appellant has filed this appeal with the prayer to setaside the same
and restore the order dated 5.2.2016 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4441 of 2010.
3. The controversy in the present case is circumscribed to the
applicability of the Scheme floated by respondentUniversity vide
letter No. SKU/ACC/202/98 dated 30.7.1998 (for short “Scheme”).
Signature Not Verified
Learned Single Judge held that the employees, who retired from the
Digitally signed by
Rachna
Date: 2022.02.02
16:27:48 IST
Reason:
service of the University on or after 1.4.1972, if died before exercising
the option, they have one more chance to exercise a fresh option,
specified in the said Scheme. It is further held that “one more
chance” to exercise the “fresh option” had been offered by the said
Scheme and in the similar cases, WP(S) No. 4452 of 2007 and WP(S)
No. 4453 of 2007 decided on 27.06.2009, the same benefit had been
extended to the petitioners therein. In the said case, L.P.A. Nos. 395
of 2009 and 397 of 2009 were dismissed. Therefore, the appellant
was held entitled to the benefit of the Scheme. On filing the LPA by
the University, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been
setaside holding that the benefit of the Scheme is applicable to only
those, who have not exercised his/her option prior to death on the
date so specified. In the present case, the option was exercised by the
husband of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to
exercise the second option under the Scheme and the learned Single
Judge committed an error by not extending the benefit to the
appellant. Impugning the said order, the wife of the deceased
employee has filed this appeal.
4. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the record, it reveals that the husband of the appellant was
appointed as Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry, Godda
College, Godda. He was promoted to the post of Reader. He died
during the course of employment on 24.2.1995. During service, the
husband of the appellant had opted for Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme. As per the option, regular deduction @ 10% from the salary
was being made. After the death, all the retiral benefits were settled
and paid as per option exercised. Thereafter the respondent
University floated a Scheme dated 30.7.1998 for teaching and non
teaching employees of Sidho Kanhu Murmu University, who retired
from the service of the University on or after 1.4.1972 for giving them
“one more chance” for exercising a “fresh option” as per the terms &
conditions specified in Scheme. Clause 5 of the Scheme is relevant
for the purpose of present case, which is reproduced thus:
“Siddhu Kanhu University, Dumka
Letter No. KU/ACC/202/98 Dated 30.07.98
From : Registrar
Siddhu Kanhu University, Dumka
To: (1) Administrative Head, P.G. Centre, Dumka
(2) All Principals of constituent Colleges (Godda
College, Godda) under Siddhu Kanhu University,
Dumka except B.S.K. College, Barharwa and Millat
College, Parsa.
Subject : Exercise of fresh option under the grant of
retirement benefit statutes.
Sir/ Madam,
I am directed to inform you that the Vicechancellor
has been pleased to order dept. all teaching and non
teaching employees of Siddhu Kanhu University and its
constituent colleges who have joined university/
constituent colleges service prior to 1.4.78 be given one
more chance, if they so like exercise a fresh option for any
one of the alternative schemes of the grant of retirement
benefit statues under the following terms and conditions:
A. General Provident Fundcum PensioncumGratuity
Scheme.
B.
Contributory Provident FundcumGratuity Scheme
in which employer’s contribution to provident fund
shall be limited to 8% of pay of the employee.
C.
Contributory provident fund only, in which the
employer’s contribution shall be 10% of pay of the
employee.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
1.
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
2. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
3. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
4. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
“5: In the case of employees who retired from the
service of the University on or after Ist April, 1972 but
have died before exercising his/her option under
Article (4) of the statute, his/her family shall be eligible
for exercising the option between the scheme provided
that if the family opts for the scheme given in scheme
A. It shall have to refund the University share of
contributory provident fund of the deceased employees,
along with interest thereon either in cash or by
adjustments from the amount of gratuity or both, and
in cash the employer’s share to the contributory
provident fund of the deceased, that exceed 8% of pay
of the deceased along with interest thereon, but then
will be entitled for pension/family pension will be
payable to them.
6.
xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
Yours faithfully,
Registrar,
S.K. University
Dumka ”
5. On perusal of the scheme, it is clear that an employee, who has
not exercised the option and retired on or after 1.4.1972, but has died
before exercising the option, the family has been offered an
opportunity to exercise the fresh option under the Scheme of the
provident fund, subject to the conditions, as specified in the Scheme
for adjustment of the amount of gratuity with interest. The appellant
had prayed for the benefit of the said Scheme before the Writ Court,
which was extended by learned Single Judge, interpreting the
expression “one more chance” and exercise “a fresh option”
erroneously. The said chance for exercising “a fresh option” as one
“more chance” was subject to the terms and conditions, as specified
in the Scheme dated 30.7.1998. The condition No. 5 of the Scheme
clearly spelt out that an employee, who retired from the service of the
University, on or after 1.4.1972 have died before exercising his/her
option, then his/her family shall be eligible for exercising the fresh
option, giving them one more chance subject to the terms and
conditions.
6 In the present case, it is not disputed that the husband of the
appellant had already exercised the option prior to his death. All the
benefits in terms of the option so exercised under the prevalent
Scheme have been received by the family members. In the said
contingency, as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme, the
appellant did not have right to exercise a fresh option to avail one
more chance to exercise the option again. By the impugned order, the
Division Bench has rightly interpreted Clause 5 of the Scheme and
rightly setaside the order of the learned Single Judge. In our view,
the Division Bench has not committed any error in passing the order
under challenge. Therefore, interference in this appeal is not
warranted.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
………………………….J.
[ INDIRA BANERJEE ]
……………………………J.
[ J.K. MAHESHWARI ]
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 16, 2021.
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.8 SECTION XVII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9393/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-10-2018
in LPA No. 123/2016 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at
Ranchi)
GEETA MISHRA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SIDHO KANHU MURMU UNIVERSITY & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 16-11-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aditya Shankar Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Kumar, AOR
Mr. Shahrukh Ahmad, Adv.
Mr. Sahil Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Mandeep Baisala, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rajeev Singh, AOR
Mr. Samant Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Arunish Singh, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Vikram, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed reportable
judgment. No order as to costs.
(GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)