GEETA MISHRA versus SIDHO KANHU MURMU UNIVERSITY & OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 12 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 16-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
103
[2021] 12 S.C.R. 103
103
GEETA MISHRA
v.
SIDHO KANHU MURMU UNIVERSITY & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 7919 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 16, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Service law: Contributory Provident Fund Scheme –
Applicability of the Scheme floated by University – In the instant
case, husband of appellant who was appointed as lecturer died
during the course of employment on 24.2.1995 – During service,
he had opted for Contributory Provident Fund Scheme – After his
death, all retiral benefits were settled and paid as per option
exercised – Thereafter, respondent-University floated a scheme for
teaching and non-teaching employees, who retired from the service
on or after 1.4.1972 for giving them “one more chance” for
exercising a “fresh option” as per the terms and conditions in the
scheme – Appellant-wife of deceased employee filed writ petition
before High Court for availing the benefit of the scheme – Single
Judge of High Court allowed the benefit of the scheme – Division
Bench, however, set aside the order of Single Judge – On appeal,
held: Under the scheme, in case of an employee who had not
exercised the option and retired on or after 1.4.1972, but died before
exercising the option, the family is offered an opportunity to exercise
the “fresh option” subject to terms and conditions – As the husband
of appellant had already exercised the option prior to his death, all
the benefits under the prevalent scheme were received by the family
members – Hence, appellant did not have the right to exercise “fresh
option” to avail the benefit one more time – Interference not
warranted.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 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. The husband of the appellant had already
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 12 S.C.R.
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. [Paras 5, 6][107-C-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.7919 of
2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.2018 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in LPA No.123 of 2016.
Aditya Shankar Prasad, Sameer Kumar, Shahrukh Ahmad, Sahil
Chowdhury, Mandeep Baisala, Advs. for the Appellant.
Rajeev Singh, Samant Singh, Kumar Arunish Singh, Abhishek
Vikram, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J. K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. 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 set-aside 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 respondent-University vide letter
No. SKU/ACC/202/98 dated 30.7.1998 (for short “Scheme”). Learned
Single Judge held that the employees, who retired from the 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
105
the learned Single Judge has been set-aside 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 Sche

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.