http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JOGINDER NATH MONGA

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/11/1995

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7)   8        1995 SCALE  (6)481

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL, J. :      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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.