Kerala High Court

Madanan N.D vs Union Of India on 12 April, 2023

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
         Wednesday, the 12th day of April 2023 / 22nd Chaithra, 1945
                            WP(C) NO. 7261 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:

  1. MADANAN N.D AGED 68 YEARS S/O. K.R. DAMODARAN, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/00113714, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, CHOORAKAD, TRIPUNITHURA P.O,
     ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301
  2. CHANDRASEKHARAN M.K AGED 75 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/00113647, KRISHNA NIVAS, BOUNDARY ROAD, PUTHYAKAVU ,
     THRIPUNITHURA, COCHIN, PIN - 682301
  3. KUNJAPPAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPAN, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00116537,
     KATTITHARATHUNDI, MARADU P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304
  4. XAVIER N.A AGED 71 YEARS S/O. N.X ANTONY, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00116266,
     NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNDANNOOR, MARADU P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304
  5. C.C MANI AGED 71 YEARS S/O. CHATHAN, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00116576,
     CHACHEDATH HOUSE, IRUMPONNAM P.O,, PIN - 682309
  6. THOMSON KAKKATTU AGED 71 YEARS S/O. P.J. PHILP, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/00117101, KAKKATTU HOUSE, GEO VILLA, MUTTAR P.O, MUTTAR, PIN
     - 689574
  7. M.A.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRY AGED 70 YEARS S/O. M.A.ARYAN NAMBOODIRY,
     P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00115344, AMEDA, UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
     682307
  8. K.BHASKARAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O. A. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/0066252, PRATHEEKSHA, MAHATHMA ROAD, TRICHAMBARAM,
     THALIPARAMBA P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670141
  9. SOMANATHAN C.G AGED 66 YEARS S/O. P. GOPALA PILLAI, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/00114862, PUTHUPARAMBATH, AROOR P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688534
 10. SOMAN ZACHARIAS M AGED 69 YEARS S/O. ZACHARIA, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/00116681, MANKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, MULAKULAM NORTH P.O, PIRAVOM,
     ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686664
 11. JOSEPH N.K AGED 69 YEARS S/O. KURIAKOSE, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00116167,
     NADUKKUDY VADAKKE PUTHENPURA, KADATHY, MEKKADAMPU P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA,
     PIN - 682316
 12. JOSE M.P AGED 71 YEARS S/O. POULOSE M.O, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00117294,
     MANJALY HOUSE, CHENGAMANAD P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683578
 13. RAJEEV.K AGED 69 YEARS S/O. K. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/00116886, SANSKRITHI, NEAR KANIYAN THODU BRIDGE, ERNAKULAM
     ROAD, VAIKOM, PIN - 686141
 14. JOSEPH N.A AGED 70 YEARS S/O. AUGUSTINE N.X, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/00116704, NEDUMPATHYTHARA HOUSE, VADAVUCODE P.O, PUTHENCRUZ,
     ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682310
 15. RAMAKRISHNAN.C AGED 68 YEARS S/O. RAMAN.C, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KNR/00066438, PRIYENDU, KADIRUR P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN -
     670642
 16. RAGHAVAN P.P AGED 69 YEARS S/O. KUNHAMBU, P.P.O NO. KR/KNR/00066279,
     PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, NADUVIL P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670582
 17. SATHYANATHAN.U AGED 67 YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNA MENON P., P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/00117378, SREEDALAM, VADAKKEKURUPATHU HOUSE, THIRUVULLAKAVU,
    CHERPU P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680561
18. GOPALAN.M AGED 72 YEARS S/O. MATTU., P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00117380,
    RUGMINEEYAM KOTHAZHATHU, EZHIKKARA P.O, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM,
    PIN - 683513
19. OOMMAN OOMMAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O. T.M.OOMMAN., P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00116701, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENGANNUR P.O,VENMONY P.O,
    ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689509
20. SASIKUMAR.K AGED 67 YEARS S/O. KUTTAPPA PANICKER., P.P.O NO.
    KR/KTM/00044929, CHEMBAKASSERIL HOUSE, KARIKODE P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
    686610
21. V.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 66 YEARS S/O. V.P. KUTTAPPAN NAIR.,
    P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00117283, KANDATHIL HOUSE, KARIKODE P.O,
    PERUVA(VIA), KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686610
22. GOPINATHAN PILLAI N AGED 68 YEARS S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI K.R., P.P.O
    NO. KR/KCH/00116538, SWATHY, PUTHUPALLY P.O, KAYAMKULAM, PIN -
    690527
23. JAYAPRAKASH C.S AGED 68 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN C.S, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00114417, SUDHA VILAS, CHAKKITTATHIL, KARAKKAD P.O,
    CHANGANUR, PIN - 689504
24. MANUEL P.T AGED 68 YEARS S/O. P.M.THOMAS, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00117375,
    PALACKAL HOUSE, ARTHUNGAL P.O, THARAMOODU, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688530
25. VASUDEVAN UNNI.K AGED 67 YEARS S/O. KESAVAN UNNI, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00115352, CHIRAMATTATHU MADOM, TRIKKARIYOOR P.O,
    KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686692
26. SASIDHARAN NAIR K AGED 67 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00116165, SARANYA HOUSE, THRIPPERUMTHURA P.O, CHENNITHALA,
    MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690105
27. JOHN T AGED 67 YEARS S/O. THOMAS V.M, P.P.O NO.KR/KLM/00113962, SS
    COTTAGE, ERAM NORTH, CHATHANNOOR P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691572
28. AJAYAKUMAR .S AGED 68 YEARS S/O. R.SATHYADAS, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00116161, KARIYIL HOUSE, CHENGANDA, VARANADU P.O, CHERTHALA,
    ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688539
29. P.K. JALEEL AGED 70 YEARS S/O. KUNJUMARAKAR, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00117100, CHERUVANAKADU HOUSE, KULAYETTIKARA P.O,
    KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682317
30. MURALEEDHARAN O.S AGED 69 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN T.P, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KTM/00045138, ONAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, VADAYAR P.O, THALAYOLAPARAMBU,
    PIN - 686605
31. POULOSE V AGED 69 YEARS S/O. PAILY VARGHESE, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00117376, MUKKANANCHERY HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA,
    PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556
32. KURIAN C.L AGED 71 YEARS S/O. C.K.LOUIS, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00117102,
    CHIRAMEL HOUSE, KARINGAMTHURUTH, KONGORPILLY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
    683518
33. A.RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 71 YEARS S/O. (LATE) V. MADHAVAN NAIR, P.P.O
    NO. KR/KCH/00113692, ALLATH HOUSE, ANTHIKAD P.O, THRISSUR, PIN -
    680641
34. GEORGE N.J AGED 70 YEARS S/O. N.J JOSEPH, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00113382,
    NARACKAVELIL HOUSE, TONY LANE, CHERIYA KADAVANTHRA, KADAVANTHRA P.O,
     KOCHI, PIN - 682020
35. REGHUNATHAN C.P AGED 71 YEARS S/O KRISHNANA NAIR, P.P.P NO.
    KR/KNR/00065763, SAI KRISHNA, KAVUM BHAGAM, THALASSERRY, KANNOOR ,
    PIN - 670649
36. VASUDEVAN A.R AGED 67 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00115350, POTHIYIL HOUSE, KALAMPOOR P.O, PIRAVAM, ERNAKULAM,
    PIN - 686664
37. BABU T.K AGED 67 YEARS S/O. A.A. KUNJUNNY, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00115353, ASWATHY, KURUMTHODATH LANE, EROOR SOUTH P.O,
    TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682306
38. JAYASREE M.C AGED 67 YEARS D/O.P.K. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00115166, JRA-5, SREE, JAYANAGAR, MARADU P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN
    - 682304
39. MADANAN K.D AGED 72 YEARS S/O. DAMODARAN K.V, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KTM/00044870, RATHUSHA, HILLPALACE ROAD, CHATHARI, TRIPUNITHURA
    P.O , ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301
40. GEETHA MADANAN K AGED 67 YEARS W/O. MADANAN K.D, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00115165, RATHUSHA, HILLPALACE ROAD, CHATHARI, TRIPUNITHURA
    P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301
41. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI J AGED 71 YEARS S/O. JANARDHANA PANICKER .P,
    P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00117319, NANDANAM HOUSE, IRIMPANAM P.O,
    CHITHRAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682309
42. PRAKASAN M.P AGED 67 YEARS S/O. PADMANABHAN, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00117103, THOTTIKULATHIL HOUSE, TRIPUNITHURA SOUTH,
    TRIPUNITHURA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301
43. ALIAS C.M AGED 70 YEARS S/O. MATHAI C.U, P.P.O NO. KR/KTM/00044675,
    CHERUMKATHADATHIL, VELIYANNOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686634
44. T.R SOMASEKHARAN NAIR AGED 67 YEARS S/O. K.R RAMAN PILLAI, P.P.O.
    NO. KR/KCH/00116204, GOVINDAM, KOLLAMKADAVU P.O, CHENGANOOR,
    ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690509
45. P. MANI JOHN AGED 71 YEARS S/O. P.J. JOHN, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KTM/00045192, PARAPPALLICHIRAYIL, KOLLAD P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
    686004
46. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR K.N AGED 67 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KTM/00045137, PUTHUPPALLIL HOUSE, MOORKATTILPADY, PERUVA P.O,
    KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686610
47. AUGUSTHY T.T AGED 68 YEARS S/O. T.D. THOMAS, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KTM/00045339, THARAYIL HOUSE, KEEZHOOR P.O, THALAYOLAPARAMBU,
    KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686605
48. THOMAS MATHEW AGED 66 YEARS S/O. P.C. MATHAI, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KTM/00044734, PALATHADATHIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
    686562
49. SUKUMARAN K AGED 69 YEARS S/O. KELAN, P.P.O NO. KR/KTM/00045210,
    PADMAVILASAM, SANTHIPURAM ROAD, PERUVA P.O, PERUVA, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
    686610
50. ABDUL AZEEZ P.M AGED 69 YEARS S/O. ABDULLA P.M, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KKD/00070852, PALAKKAVALAPPIL MADAPPALLIYIL, VETTOM P.O, TIRUR,
    MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676102
51. SREEDHARAN K AGED 69 YEARS S/O. KUNJAN, P.P.O NO. KR/KKD/00070990,
    USHAS KARANGATTU, KUTTITHUDIPPARAMBIL, RAMANATTUKARA P.O, KOZHIKODE,
     PIN - 673633
52. BALAKRISHNAN C.K AGED 67 YEARS S/O. C.N. KUTTAPPAN, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00116152, CHERIYIL HOUSE, PUNNORCODE, PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O,
    ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683565
53. HAREESH BABU A.P AGED 67 YEARS S/O. P. KRISHNAN (LATE), P.P.O NO.
    KL/KNR/00066192, VEESEVEN, PARAKKANDY HOUSE, NEAR CANNANORE SPINNING
    MILL, KAKKAD P.O, KANNUR, PIN - 670005
54. MOHANAN NAIR R AGED 69 YEARS S/O. RAMAN NAIR, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/117293, KAUSTHUBHAM, CHOORAKKATT HOUSE, TRIPUNITHURA SOUTH
    P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301
55. K.F OUEPH AGED 70 YEARS S/O. FRANCIS, P.P.O NO. KR/KTM/00045208,
    KALANGOLA HOUSE, KANAKKARY P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686632
56. RAMESAN P AGED 74 YEARS S/O. PAPPUKUTTY .A, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KLM/00113093, LAKSHMIVILASAM, PADASOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALY P.O,
    KOLLAM, PIN - 690518
57. K. SREEKANTAN NAIR AGED 68 YEARS S/O. T. KRISHNA PILLAI, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KTM/00045183, SRIMADHKAROTTUMADOM, JAYANAGAR, BYE PASS ROAD,
    MARAUD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682304
58. ALEYAMMA PHILIPOSE AGED 70 YEARS W/O. P.K. JACOB, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00113373, 28/2507, VINOBHA NAGAR, CHILAVANOOR, KADAVANTHRA
    P.O, COCHIN, PIN - 682020
59. R. RAJENDRAN AGED 73 YEARS S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00117392, IV-36, SREEVALSAM, KKRA-7, KOLAZHY P.O, THRISSUR,
    PIN - 680010
60. PARAMESWARAN M.S AGED 69 YEARS S/O. N.R. SANKARAN, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KTM/00045135, NAMBRATH HOUSE, AZHIMUKHAM ROAD, PUTHURUTHY P.O,
    THRISSUR, PIN - 680620
61. AMARADAS E.K AGED 66 YEARS S/O. KARAPPAN E.M, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00115299, EZHUVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, THANISSERY P.O,
    IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680701
62. K. SIVANKUTTY NAIR AGED 71 YEARS S/O. KESAVAN NAIR, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00116269, EDASSERIATHU HOUSE, MAMPRA P.O, CHERIYANADU,
    ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 682017
63. VISWANATHAN PILLAI G AGED 70 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAPILLAI, P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00116236, VIPANJIKA, PONNEZHA, THEKKEKARA P.O, MAVELIKKARA,
    ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690107
64. MATHEW JOHN AGED 72 YEARS S/O. T.M. JOHN, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00112914,
    KALEECKAL VILLA, KATTANAM, PALLICKAL P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
65. SUBHASH K.K AGED 67 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN K.T., P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00116885, KURUMUTTATH HOUSE, NANTHIATTUKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR
    P.O,, PIN - 683513
66. JOY M.K AGED 69 YEARS S/O. KAKKARA, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00116522,
    MANALIL, VIP COLONY, MANNAM P.O, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
    683520
67. HORMIS U.M AGED 68 YEARS S/O. MATHEW U.A., P.P.O NO.
    KR/KCH/00117389, UPPAN HOUSE, MELOOR P.O, CHALAKUDY, PIN - 680311
68. T.T JOHNY AGED 71 YEARS S/O. T.O. THOMAS, P.P.O NO. KR/KCH/00117291,
    THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, PESHKAR ROAD JUNCTION, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR,
    PIN - 680121
69. SARAMMA MATHEW T AGED 71 YEARS W/O. K.C. THOMAS, P.P.O NO.
      KR/KCH/00116476, HOUSE NO.28/2769A, KANAKKANCHERIL HOUSE, PONNETH
     SOUTH ROAD, KADAVANTHARA P.O, KOCHI, PIN - 682020
 70. P.K KRISHNANKUTTY AGED 72 YEARS S/O. P.K. SREEDHARAN, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KTM/00044844, PULICUNNEL, VADAYAR P.O, KOTTAYAM, , PIN - 686605
 71. ABRAHAM K.M AGED 71 YEARS S/O. K.E. MATHAI, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KTM/00044364, KAKKATTIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
     686631
 72. C. KUTTALAM PILLAI AGED 70 YEARS S/O. A.C. CHIDAMBARAM, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/00116535, DEVIKRIPA, SNRA-5B, SUVARNA NAGAR, EROOR P.O,
     TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682306
 73. K.K. CHITHAMBARAN AGED 76 YEARS S/O. KUNJUNNI KURUP P.P.O NO.
     KR/KCH/00116288, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, THALORE P.O, SUBRAMANNIA IYYER
     ROAD, TRICHUR, PIN - 680306
 74. R. SYAMALA AGED 70 YEARS W/O. C. SASI, P.P.O NO. KR/KTM/00045198, S-
     SQUARE, VELLOOR, MEVELLOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686606
 75. C. SASI AGED 71 YEARS S/O. CHELLAPPAN, P.P.O NO. KR/KTM/00045439, S-
     SQUARE, VELLOOR, MEVELLOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686606
 76. SASEENDRAN M.N AGED 71 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, P.P.O NO.
     KR/KTM/00044770, SURYAKANTHY, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
     682315

RESPONDENTS:

  1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND
     EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEWDELHI, PIN - 110001
  2. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF
     PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14,BHIKAJI CAMA
     PALACE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066
  3. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
     ORGANISATION BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, ADITYA SABARI TOWER, POST
     OFFICE ROAD,THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686001
  4. HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER
     NEWSPRINT NAGAR, PIRAVOM ROAD, VELLOOR, KERALA, PIN - 686616

     Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay the operation of Exhibits P7 and P8 and restore/ continue
the monthly pension paid to the petitioners under their respective pension
payment orders, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
     This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition
and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this court's order dated
03.03.2023 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. R.SANJITH & C.S.SINDHU
KRISHNAH, Advocates for the petitioners, M/S. JOY THATTIL ITTOOP & NITA
N.S., Advocates for R3, the court passed the following:
                  ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.
            ----------------------------
 W.P.(C) Nos.8979/2023, 16018/2020, 11737/2021,
    4958/2023, 5300/2023, 5442/2023, 5460/2023,
    5473/2023, 5503/2023, 5510/2023, 5513/2023,
    5790/2023, 5876/2023, 5987/2023, 6178/2023,
   6206/2023, 6260/2023, 6284/2023, 6292/2023,
    6499/2023, 6502/2023, 6681/2023, 6703/2023,
    6710/2023, 6723/2023, 6725/2023, 6731/2023,
    6740/2023, 6779/2023, 6811/2023, 6905/2023,
     6941/2023, 6990/2023, 7015/2023,7043/2023,
    7073/2023, 7105/2023, 7141/2023, 7261/2023,
    7547/2023, 7578/2023, 7614/2023, 7838/2023,
    7990/2023, 8412/2023, 8727/2023, 8777/2023,
    8990/2023, 9061/2023, 9177/2023, 9241/2023,
    9351/2023, 9358/2023, 9494/2023, 9614/2023,
  9659/2023, 9979/2023, 10175/2023, 10186/2023,
10219/2023, 10535/2023, 10650/2023, 10711/2023,
              11442/2023 & 11554/2023.
              ------------------------
       Dated this the 12th day of April, 2023


                           O R D E R

In all these cases, the issue involved is

pertaining to the legal entitlement of the

petitioners for higher pension, as per the

provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. These writ

petitions are already admitted.

2. As per the decision rendered by the

Honourable Supreme Court in EPF Organisation v.

Sunil Kumar [2022(7) KHC 12 (SC)], certain

directions were issued in this regard with respect

to the options to be submitted by the employees

concerned, to be eligible for the benefits of

higher pension under the Employees Pension Scheme,

1995. In para 44 (iv) of the said decision, the

following observations were issued by the

Honourable Supreme Court.

" 44 (iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1st September 2014 stands crystallized in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1st September 2014 did not provide for any cut-off date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme."

3. The Honorable Supreme Court permitted the

employees who could not submit the options in the

light of para 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme,

to submit fresh options within a period of four

months. Though the said period expired on

3.03.2023, the same was further extended for two

months i.e. up to 3.05.2023. The petitioners in

these cases are employees intending to submit

their options in the light of directions of the

Honourable Supreme Court.

4. The EPF organization made available to the

employees the facility to submit the options

through online mode by providing necessary links

for the same on their website. Ext P9 in

WP(C)8979/2023 is the option form the employee has

to fill up while submitting the option.

      5.    The          grievance              highlighted             by        the

petitioners           is    that         one        of    the   details      to   be

furnished in the said option form is the copy of

the permission under para 26(6) of the Employees

Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. According to the

petitioners, even though they were permitted to

pay the contribution based on the salary,

exceeding the ceiling limit prescribed (Rs 5,000/-

and Rs 6,500/-), as contemplated under para 26(6)

of the Scheme 1952, no formal option has been

submitted. According to them, submission of such

an option was never necessitated or insisted upon,

and instead, higher contributions were being

accepted all along by the EPFO. Therefore, they

are unable to fill up the said column in the

online option form, and the said form is

formulated in such a fashion that, unless the

details of the option under para 26 (6) of the

Scheme, 1952 are incorporated, they cannot

successfully submit the online options. If they

are not submitting their options on or before the

cut-off date, i.e. 3.05.2023, they will be

deprived of the benefits of the Scheme to which

they are legally entitled. In such circumstances,

the petitioners seek an interim order permitting

them to submit options without insisting on the

details/copies of the options submitted by them

under para 26(6) of the Scheme 1952.

6. The prayer for interim relief is stoutly

opposed by the respective Standing Counsels for

the EPFO. According to them, the option under para

26(6) is one of the crucial requirements for

availing the benefits, and therefore, it is

absolutely necessary for processing the options

submitted by the employees.

7. The learned counsels for the petitioners

would point out that higher contributions were

being accepted by the EPFO all along, even without

formal options from the employees and without any

insistence for submission of options as referred

to above. The petitioners relied on various

circulars issued by the EPFO to substantiate the

said contentions.

8. In circular bearing No:

Pension/Misc.2005/65836 dated 22.011.2006, it was

mentioned in para 4 (4) that, if the option was

not exercised at the time of salary crossing the

statutory limit or on 16.3.1996 as the case may be

and the contributions were deposited on salary

exceeding the limit after receiving instructions

from the Office before the date of issue of

circular dated 22.06.2004, the department has the

vicarious liability(restricted to specific cases

only)of honouring such a commitment and hence the

pensionable salary shall be on the actual salary,

i.e. on the salary (exceeding the statutory limit)

on which contribution paid. However, it is true

that, in para 4 (5) of the said Circular, it was

clarified that, in cases where no options were

given, or no commitment was made by the concerned

office, but the contribution on higher pay was

deposited by the establishment/employee on their

own, excess contributions will be considered as

erroneous contributions, and the pensionary salary

will be restricted to statutory ceiling existing

from time to time. But the fact remains that the

said Circular clearly indicates that certain

offices of the EPFO used to give instructions for

accepting the higher contributions, even without

options being actually submitted, and permitting

payment of higher contribution.

9. Besides the same, in Circular No Pen-

1/12/33/96/Amendment/Vol.IV/16762 dated 22.01.2019

(Ext P3 in WP(C) 8979/2023), it is mentioned as

follows: "However, if an employer and employee have contributed under the EPF Scheme, 1952 on wages higher than the statutory wage

limit, without joint option of employee & employer, and the EPF

Account of the concerned employee has been updated by the EPFO on

the basis of such contribution received, then by action of

employee, employer and EPFO, it can be inferred that joint option

of the employee and employee has been exercised and accepted by

EPFO........."

10. Of course, the said Circular has been

withdrawn as per Circular dated 7.02.2019, in the

light of the observations made by a Division Bench

judgment of this Court in WP(C)13120 of 2015.

However, the said Circular dated 22.01.2019

clearly conveys the manner in which the EPFO

treated the issue as regards the necessity of

submitting options under para 26(6) of the Scheme

1952, and it indicates that the submission of

options was never made mandatory.

11. In addition to the above, the petitioners

have also raised a contention that, in the

judgment passed by the Division Bench of this

Court, in Sasikumar P. and others v. Union of

India and others [ILR 2019 (1) Kerala 614], it was

clarified that, the employees shall be entitled to

exercise the option stipulated by paragraph 26 of

the EPF Scheme without being restricted in doing

so by the insistence on a date. Therefore, even if

the submission of an option is mandatory, it is

still open for the employees to submit the same

without any cut-off date. It was further contended

that, even though the said judgment was set aside

by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar's

case (supra), it would not affect the direction of

the Division Bench judgment of this court in

Sasikumar's case (supra), as there is no contrary

finding in the decision of the Honourable Supreme

Court, with regard to the option under para 26(6)

of the Scheme 1952. In my view, this is also a

matter to be considered at the time of the final

hearing.

12. Thus, when all the above aspects are

considered, it can be seen that, right from the

inception, higher contributions were being

accepted by the EPFO, even without submitting

options under para 26(6) of the Scheme 1952. It is

also evident that in some cases, instructions were

issued from some of the offices of EPFO to accept

the same, and in some cases, accounts of

respective employees were also updated in tune

with such higher contributions.

13. Further, the petitioners also have a

contention that, going by the language used in

para 26(6) of the Scheme, 1952, it could be

interpreted as an enabling provision, which

provides the power to the EPFO to accept higher

contributions in certain circumstances and the

same cannot be treated as a provision which makes

the submission of option mandatory. The exercise

of such options and their acceptance by the EPFO

can be inferred from the conduct of the employees,

employers and the EPFO, as mentioned in Circular

dated 22.01.2019. After considering the provisions

in this regard, I am of the view that this is also

a relevant aspect to be considered in detail.

14. Thus, when considering all the above

aspects, the only view that can possibly be taken

is that the petitioners have succeeded in

establishing a prima facie case, warranting an

interim order in the matter. It is to be noted

that the balance of convenience also favours the

petitioners. Evidently, the Honourable Supreme

Court fixed the cut-off date as 3.05.2023 for

submitting the options. Now on account of the

insistence from the EPFO to furnish the details of

the option under para 26(6)of the Scheme, 1952,

and also in view of the peculiar nature of the

online facility provided for such submissions,

they are now prevented from submitting the said

options. There cannot be any dispute that if they

were not permitted to submit their options before

the cut-off date, they would be deprived of their

opportunity to claim the benefits of the judgment

of the Honourable Supreme Court forever.

 WP(C) No. 8979/2023 & Con.cases         12

Therefore,          the      petitioners       deserve      an   interim

order       for       that        reason,i.e.       the     balance    of

convenience, as well.

15. The learned Standing Counsel for the EPFO

also raised a contention that some of the writ

petitions are submitted by the employees of the

exempted establishments, and they cannot be

granted the benefits. However, in para 38 of the

judgment in Sunil Kumar's case (supra), this

aspect was considered, and it was found that

employees of the exempted establishments should

not be deprived of the benefit of remaining in the

pension scheme while drawing salary beyond the

ceiling limit. Therefore the said contention of

the EPFO is also not prima facie sustainable.