Summary
The Court held that a widow could not invoke the University’s 1998 fresh-option scheme where her husband had already chosen contributory provident fund and the family had received benefits accordingly. The scheme’s reference to one more chance remained subject to Clause 5, which made family exercise of the option conditional on the employee having died before exercising it. The Single Judge’s broader reading disregarded that condition.
Issues
- Whether the family could exercise a fresh retirement-benefit option despite the employee’s completed lifetime election.
Provisions considered
- Clause 5, Sidho Kanhu University fresh retirement-benefit option scheme, letter dated 30 July 1998The family’s option was conditional on the employee having died before exercising the relevant option; that condition was not met. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6)
Held
- The words one more chance and fresh option could not be read independently of the scheme’s terms. Clause 5 permitted a family option for the specified employees only where death preceded exercise of the option, subject to the stated financial adjustments. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- The employee had already elected the contributory provident fund arrangement and the family had received the resulting benefits after his death. The scheme therefore conferred no right on the widow to exercise another option. (¶¶ 4, 6)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The Division Bench judgment refusing the fresh option and setting aside the Single Judge’s relief was upheld; no costs.