Jurisdictional Challenge in Pension Benefits Case

Dive into a fascinating legal analysis of a recent case involving pension benefits and jurisdictional challenges. The court’s intricate examination of the case has raised important questions regarding legal jurisdiction and its impact on pension entitlements. Stay tuned for more insights into this thought-provoking legal matter.

Facts

• The appellant’s representation for pensionary benefits was rejected.
• The surrendered amount of 10% was refunded to all pensioners with interest under the order dated 30.01.2012 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner.
• The appellant was refunded Rs. 49,289, consisting of the surrendered amount with interest and widow pension arrears.
• The appellant claimed a higher sum under the now abolished provisions of the Pension Scheme.
• The appellant moved the High Court of Patna for disbursal of pensionary benefits and to quash the communication stating no other payment is due.
• The widow of the pensioner claimed a sum equivalent to 100 times the full monthly pension of her husband under the Pension Scheme, 1998.
• The appellant’s appeal was dismissed as not maintainable by the Single Judge due to lack of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Patna.
• The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s decision by dismissing the LPA filed by the appellant with similar observations regarding the pensioner’s services being outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Patna High Court.
• Consequently, the widow of the pensioner’s writ petition was deemed not maintainable by the courts.

Also Read: Insurance Claim Repudiation due to Fire Incident: Court’s Legal Analysis

Arguments

• Appellant’s counsel argued that the lumpsum payment became due to the widow upon her husband’s death
• Counsel highlighted that the appellant, as the widow, is suffering due to being non suited on jurisdictional grounds
• Respondent’s counsel mentioned that the appellant’s case was settled as per an administrative order, with a refund of 10% surrendered value of monthly pension
• The widow of the employee has been forced to litigate for over a decade to secure pension benefits.
• The court did not consider her entitlement on merit but dismissed the Writ Petition and the LPA citing territorial jurisdiction.
• The employment of the appellant’s husband with the respondent employer is not in dispute.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy in Pregnancy: Examining the Inviolable Nature of the Human Personality

Analysis

• Appellant’s husband, Ramashankar Pandey, opted for receiving 90% pension under para 15(1)(b) of the Pension Scheme 1998.
• Upon the employee’s death on 12.01.2011, the widow became entitled to a lump sum payment equal to 100 times the full monthly pension amount.
• The Regional Commissioner of CMPFO informed about the abolition of the provision for 90% pension w.e.f 21.02.2011.
• An amount of Rs.7091/- p.m. was sanctioned as Basic Pension to the employee from 01.06.2004 onwards, with 10% being deposited with the department.
• The High Court’s orders in C.W.J.C No.9837/2014 related to the pension are being challenged in this appeal.
• Coal Mines Pension Scheme, 1998 was framed for social security and socio-economic justice in the coal sector.
• Pension is a deferred compensation for long years of service and considered property by the Court.
• Highlighted case: State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another.
• The decision to discontinue the provision in the pension scheme by the employer was not commented on in terms of legality.
• The pensioner was not alive at the time of discontinuance, which is considered in making the decision.
• Necessary orders were passed in favor of the pensioner in the same proceeding due to the unique circumstances of the case.

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Suretech Hospital Medical Negligence Case: A Tale of Negligence and Unnecessary Risk-Taking

Decision

• The appeal was allowed with the specified order.
• The sum due under the Pension scheme is to be computed and disbursed to the appellant.
• The amount previously refunded to the appellant will be adjusted during the remittance process.
• Respective costs are to be borne by the parties involved.
• The respondent/employer is required to comply with the order within 8 weeks from today.

Case Title: VEENA PANDEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2021 INSC 745)

Case Number: C.A. No.-006953-006953 / 2021

Click here to read/download original judgement