Mohanan K. S vs Regional Provident Fund ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 178 Ker

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

           TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

                            WP(C).No.61 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER:

                 MOHANAN K. S.
                 AGED 64 YEARS
                 S/O. SADASIVAN P. N., ANASTHANATHU KOTTINATU, MEMANA,
                  OCHIRA P. O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 526. (PF
                 NO.KR/KCH/4544/00011), (PPO NO. KR/KLM/00102859)

                 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRAKASH

RESPONDENTS:

       1         REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
                 EPF ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,
                 BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, COCHIN - 682 017.

       2         REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
                 EPF ORGANISTION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, PARAMESWAR NAGAR,
                 KOLLAM - 691 001.

       3         MANAGER
                 CENTRAL PRODUCTS DIARY, KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING
                 FEDERATION LTD., PUNNAPRA P. O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 004.


OTHER PRESENT:

                 SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S. SUDHEER
                 SRI. S.PRASANTH
                 SMT. LATHA ANAND - SC

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.61 OF 2021(G)

                                     2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he was working with the 3 rd

respondent - Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.,

and that he retired, on attaining the age of superannuation, on

31.10.2014. He says that he had subscribed to the Employees

Provident Fund and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995,

constituted under the Employees Provident Fund and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as

'the Act' for short) and that he has been drawing his pension on

the actual salary computed on the basis of the average pay drawn

by him during the period of sixty months prior to his age of

superannuation.

2. The petitioner, however, alleges that the 1st

respondent has not adopted the correct figure of his salary for

determining the pension and that Exts.P3 and P4 would

substantiate this.

3. The petitioner, through his learned counsel -

Sri.M.P.Prakash therefore, says that the he has preferred Exts.P6

and P7 representations before the 1st respondent to correct the WP(C).No.61 OF 2021(G)

afore mistake; but alleges that no action has been taken by the

said Authority until now. The learned counsel, therefore, prays

that Exts.P6 and P7 be directed to be taken up and disposed of at

the earliest.

4. In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the

provident Fund Commissioner, Sri.Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer,

submits that there does not appear to be any legal impediment in

Exts.P6 and P7 being disposed of; but prayed that this Court may

not make any affirmative declaration as to the entitlement of the

petitioners to any relief and leave it to the competent Authority to

take a decision on it in terms of law.

5. Smt.Latha Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd

respondent, submitted that her client does not have a role to play

in the controversy in question at this time and thus prayed that

no further orders be issued against them.

Taking note of the afore submissions and since the

petitioner only seeks that Exts.P6 and P7 representations be

directed to be disposed of, I order this writ petition and direct the

1st respondent to take up the said representations and decide on

the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the WP(C).No.61 OF 2021(G)

petitioner - either physically or through videoconferencing -

culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as

is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

SD/-

                                          DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

rp                                                JUDGE
 WP(C).No.61 OF 2021(G)






                                   APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.10.2016 OF THE
                           1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2                 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED
                           11.09.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3                 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.11.2016 OF THE
                           3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4                 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY LETTER DATED

10.10.2017 OF THE PIO UNDER THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY LETTER DATED 06.11.2017 OF THE PIO UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.02.2018 OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 10.10.2018 OF THE PETITIONER.