18.08.2026 Item no. 05 Court no. 30 g.b. 266012 WPA 20142 of 2026 Lakshmi Kanta Bera & Ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. Sk. Md. Galib Ms. Sangita Paul …… For the Petitioners Mr. Anil Kr. Gupta ……For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 1. Affidavit of service filed be taken on record. 2. The writ application has been preferred praying for setting aside of an order dated 28th of February, 2005 passed by the Provident Fund Authorities. 3. It is submitted that the said order was challenged in an earlier writ application which was later dismissed for default. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the Provident Fund Authority submits that no fresh writ application is maintainable and the petitioner has to pray for restoration of the earlier writ application which was dismissed for default. 4. The petitioners have relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of their case, (reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 135 (Rinku Mondal (Biswas) & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), that the present writ application is maintainable. 2 5. Considering the said arguments of the parties, this Court finds that the petitioners have further prayed for compliance of direction contained in Judgement and Order dated the 15th September, 2004 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in W. P. No. 7959 (W) of 2004 (Kurana Bala Bera Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) upon cancelling, quashing and/or setting aside the purported proceeding dated the 28th February, 2005 and have further prayed for direction upon the respondent no.1/R.P.F. Authority to consider and dispose of the representation of the writ petitioners dated 11th of April, 2026. 6. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that admittedly the deceased employee did “not opt” for the pension scheme under the E.P.F. scheme when the same was implemented in the year 1971. The employee expired in the year 1986 i.e. 16 years after the scheme came into effect. 7. The petitioners at present are the legal heirs of the deceased employee being his children. It is submitted by the petitioners that after the death of their father, the employee, his wife/their mother had opted for the pension scheme, which this Court finds is prima facie not in accordance with law as the same has to be by the employee himself, 3 which even if it is for his ignorance, he did not exercise his option for 16 long years. The petitioners herein being the children have now claimed arrears pension in respect of their mother, when in fact, admittedly no pension was ever received by the mother of the petitioners. 8. This Court relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs. President, Rajasthan Roadways Union & Anr. in Civil Appeal No. 6639 of 2012 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 36125 of 2011 dated September 18, 2012 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that, to be entitled to pension under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, the same is contingent upon the active opt-in by the employee which in the present case, this Court finds that admittedly the employee did not exercise. 9. Considering the said facts, the writ application, having no merit, stands dismissed. 10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after completion of all necessary formalities. ( Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)