Kerala High Court

C.K. Purushothaman 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. 5510 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:

  1. C.K. PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN C.A, RESIDING AT
     CHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBALLOOR, KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
     682315
  2. K.A. ALI, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. AHAMED, KUDIYIRICKAL HOUSE,
     PUTHUPPALLIPURAMKARA, CHANGAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682033
  3. K.P.MOHAMMED, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. PAREEKUTTY, KUDIYIRICKAL HOUSE,
     CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682033
  4. C.K. SWARNALATHA, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O. VIDHYADARAN K, MULAMMOOTTIL
     HOUSE, BEERANKUTTY ROAD, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
     682024
  5. M.U. SUSEELA, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O. O.K. USHAR RAJ, KARTHIKA,
     PUTHUKKALAVATTOM TEMPLE ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686026
  6. ASHOK KUMAR C.N, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANA MENON, SAYOOJYA,
     KARAKKAT STREET, KANNANKULANGARA, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
     683513
  7. RAVINDRAN P.P, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. P.N. PADMANABAN,
     PULICKALPARAMBIL HOUSE, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
     682305
  8. T.K. PARAMESWARAN, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. T.K. KUMARAN, THONIPARAMBIL,
     CHAMMANIKADATH ROAD, PIPE LANE, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
     682025
  9. P.A. UTHAMAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. AYYAPPAN KUTTY, PARUTHIVELIL,
     EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
 10. M.P. RATHAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN, MOOTHATTU HOUSE,
     KUMBALANGI, KOCHI, PIN - 682007
 11. SAMUEL VARGHESE, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. P.M. VARGHESE, PATHALIL
     PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN
     - 682033
 12. RAJAKISHORE V.S, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, NEERCHALIL HOUSE,
     CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, UNICHIRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682033
 13. N.P.VIJAYAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. PAPPU, NJARUVELIL HOUSE,
     KANGARAPADI VADAKODE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
 14. ABDUL KADER V.P, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. C.P. MUHAMMED, BLOSSOMS, KULAM
     BAZAR, MUZHUPPILANGAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670662
 15. P.VALSALAM, AGED 67 YEARS, C/O. PONNUMUTHAN, V.S VILAS, ELLUVILA,
     ARAYOOR PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695122
 16. K.MOHANAN NAIR, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. KESAVA PILLAI, LEKSHMI VILASOM,
     MELAMMAKAM, PORANOOR, CHENKAL, PLAMOOTTIKKADA P.O,
     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695122
 17. N.VIJAYAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. S. NEELAKANDAN, GANGOTHRI,
     PUTHUSSERIL PADINJATTETHIL, MUDIYOORKONAM P.O, PANDALAM, PIN -
     689501
 18. THULASIDAS N, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. R. NARAYANADAS, CHAITHANYA,
     H.NO.XIII/7974, KANNAMURI LANE, THOPPIL ROAD, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM,
    PIN - 682024
19. ARAVINDAKSHAN K.P, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN, KALATHIL HOUSE,
    THURUTHIPURAM, MOOTHAKUNNAM, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683516
20. E.O. KUNJUMUHAMMED, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. E.K. OORANPILLAI,
    EDAPPALIYATH HOUSE, S B PURAM, SREEMOOLANAGARAM, PIN - 683580
21. P.K. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. P.A. KUMARAN,
    PARAKULANGARA, NEW ROAD CNP NAGAR, CHANGAMPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
    682033
22. M.K. ANANDAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. KANDAN, KUNDEPADAM HOUSE,
    PUTHUPALLIPURAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, PIN - 682033
23. USHAMMA LAWARENCE, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. M.T. LAWARENCE, MUTTUNGAL
    MAJOR ROAD, JUSTICE LANE, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682019
24. G. GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. T.R. GOVINDAN NAIR,
    POOVAPADATH HOUSE, PUTHUPPALLIPURAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, ERNAKULAM,
    PIN - 682033
25. V.A. ARAVINDAKSHAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. V.A. APPUMENON, VAISAKOM, M
    A BANK STOP, CHERANALLOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682034
26. T. RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. THANKAPPAN ACHARI, NEERCHALIL
    HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, UNICHIRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682033
27. T.K. SURENDRAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. T.K. KUTTAN, CHITHRANIVAS
    THONIPARAMBIL, VATTAKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY, PIN - 682024
28. P.P. DINANAKSHAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. KANDU, AISWARYA,
    KANGARAPPADI, VADACODE ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
29. RENJITH KUMAR K.R, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN,
    KOOVAKKOTTU HOUSE, EROOR NORTH P.O, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
    682306
30. P.I.MADHAVAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. ITTIKKA, ARUNODAYAM HOUSE,
    ALANGATTUMUGAL, VADACODE, KANGARAPADI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
31. N.C. SHYLAJA, AGED 68 YEARS, D/O. K.N. GOPALAKRISHNAN, KAKKATHARA
    HOUSE, VALIYAPULLARA, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682006
32. M.A. HAMEED AGED 68 YEARS S/O. M.P. AHAMMEDKUTTY, MANNOPPILLY CUSAT,
    KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682022
33. N.M. ALIYAMMA AGED 70 YEARS D/O. N.M. YACOB, SIKHI SIKHA,
    UDAYAMPERUR P.O, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682301
34. N.S. SASEENDRAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O. SANKUNNIPANICKER,
    NERIYAMPARAMPATH, PUNNURCOD, PAZHAMTHOTTAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683565
35. K.N.SHAJI AGED 66 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, KRISHNA VILAS, THURAVUR
    P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 683572
36. T.S. JELAJA AGED 67 YEARS S/O. SANKARAN T, AKSHAYA MEDEKA, L ELOOR
    SOUTH, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501
37. P.O.VARGHESE AGED 67 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, PAMPOTTIL HOUSE,
    KODUMPPURKARA, KOKKAPPILY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305
38. N.P. PAUL AGED 72 YEARS S/O. POULOSE, NOTTATH HOUSE, AKG ROAD,
    EDAPPALLY, PIN - 682024
39. C.K. ZAKKARIA AGED 69 YEARS S/O. KADER, MUTHAYIL HOUSE, KOONAMTHAI,
    EDAPPALLY, PIN - 682024
40. AMBIKA .K AGED 73 YEARS W/O. VISWANATHAN, THURUVATHIRA,
    32/2374/PJRA, P J ANTONY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, PIN - 682025
41. BABY PAUL AGED 67 YEARS S/O. V.M. POULOSE, VADAKKECHALIL,
     PARRAJUNCTION, KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683545
42. M.T. KURIAKOSE AGED 69 YEARS S/O. THARIYATH, MADAPPILLIL HOUSE,
    PAZHANGANADU, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683562
43. JOSE ABRAHAM AGED 70 YEARS S/O. O. ABRAHAM,THERADIEL HOUSE, PRA 11,
    PAREKATTIL LANE, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682017
44. K. GEORGE JACOB AGED 66 YEARS S/O. K.J. JACOB, KANNATHARA HOUSE,
    H.NO. XXXV/278, KOONAMTHAI, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
45. JAYARAJAN K.R AGED 69 YEARS S/O. R.K. SASTRY, SREYAS, H.NO.33/102C,
    SOUMYA NAGAR, ALINCHUVADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
46. MOHANAN A.M AGED 68 YEARS S/O. A.N. MAHESWARAN NAMPUTHIRIPAD,
    AKAVOOR MANA, SM NAGAR, VELLARAPPILLY SOUTH P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
    683580
47. V.V. THANKAPPAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O. VELANDI, VELAMPARAMPIL HOUSE,
    ELOOR NORTH, UDYOGAMANDAL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683501
48. WINNY A.X AGED 67 YEARS W/O. T.J. JOSE, THYKKOOTTATHIL HOUSE,
    33/3175A VENNALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028
49. V.P. MATHEW AGED 71 YEARS S/O. VARKEY PAILY, VATTAPPILLIL
    KOKKAPPILLY, THIRUVAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682305
50. POULOSE P.M AGED 72 YEARS S/O. CHAKKU MATHU, PARAYIL HOUSE,
    AGAPARAMPU, MEKKAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683589
51. NANDAKUMAR M AGED 68 YEARS S/O. T.C. BHASKARAN , NAKKANATH MADAM,
    TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682301
52. SURESH K AGED 66 YEARS S/O. G. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, SREE RAMA VILAS,
    POONJAR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686581
53. K.M. BAVA AGED 69 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED, KALLEPURATH HOUSE, PUTHIYA
    ROAD, VADACODE, PIN - 682021
54. T.V. LILLIKUTTY AGED 70 YEARS W/O. T.O. JOHN, THARAYIL HOUSE,
    AMBALLUR P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682315
55. VIJAYARAGHAVAN V AGED 70 YEARS S/O. R. VELANDY, VADAKKECHALLA,
    MUTHALAMADA, GOVINDAPURAM P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678507
56. A.R. SUBRAMANIAN AGED 66 YEARS S/O. RAMAN, AJAY BHAVAN, MNRA 209 ,
    EROOR WEST P.O, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682306
57. SEKHARAN P AGED 66 YEARS S/O. RAVUNNI NAIR, PARACKAL HOUSE,
    KALLEPPADI, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680581
58. VASUDEVAN NAIR S AGED 68 YEARS S/O. S. SREEDHARAN NAIR, DEVIKRIPA,
    TEMPLE AVENUE, UDAYA NAGAR MAIN ROAD, AYYANTHOL, TRICHUR, PIN -
    680003
59. NEELAKANTAN UNNI AGED 73 YEARS S/O. NARAYAN, IRULOOR MANA,
    PALAYAMPARAMBU, VADAKKUMMURI, TRICHUR, PIN - 680741
60. K.K.KUTTAN AGED 70 YEARS C/O. VANAJA, KANNADI HOUSE, CHAZHOOR P.O,
    THRISSUR, PIN - 680571
61. PAUL V.O AGED 67 YEARS S/O. OUSEPH, VADAKKAN HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA
    P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680551
62. SAJI D. CHERUVATHUR AGED 66 YEARS CHERUVATHUR HOUSE, KALLUMPURAM
    KADAVALLUR, TRICHUR, PIN - 680543
63. V.S. PREMADASAN AGED 69 YEARS S/O. V.K SANKARAN, VALAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
    ERAVU, THRISSUR, PIN - 680620
64. NAWSHATH BEEGUM AGED 70 YEARS W/O. JAFFERKHAN, KARAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
    BROTHER MISSION ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN - 680121
65. MOHANAN K.K AGED 67 YEARS KATTUVALAPPIL HOUSE, PADUKKAD, VIYYUR,
     THRISSUR, PIN - 680010
66. ABRAHAM VARGHESE AGED 70 YEARS KATTEKUZHIYIL, VADAKKANCHERRY,
    THRISSUR, PIN - 680582
67. VENUGOPALAN K AGED 68 YEARS KOORCHAMVEETIL HOUSE, MINALUR, MG KAVU,
    THRISSUR, PIN - 680581
68. MRIDULA K A AGED 68 YEARS D/O. AYYAPPAN K.I, THADATHIL HOUSE, NEAR
    PANJAYATH NEENTHALKULAM, PERAMAGALAM, PIN - 680008
69. C.P. SASIDHARAN NAIR AGED 68 YEARS S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR,
    THOTTUNKAL HOUSE, SH MOUNT P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686006
70. K.N. SASIDHARAN AGED 67 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, KARTHYA BHAVAN,
    AREEPARAMBU P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686501
71. P. GOPIKUTTAN AGED 71 YEARS HARISREE MANOJ BHAVAN, KANAKKARI,
    KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686632
72. C.K. SASI AGED 67 YEARS S/O. KUTTAN, CHENNALATHU, LAKKATTOOR P.O,
    KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686502
73. T.K. RAJENDRAN AGED 67 YEARS S/O. KOCHUKUNJACHARI, THATTANPARAMBIL
    MARIYAPPALLY P.O, , PIN - 686013
74. P.M. RAJAPPAN NAIR AGED 67 YEARS S/O. SANKARAPILLAI,
    MADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUR P.O, ETTUMANNOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN -
    686631
75. M.V. GOPINATHAN NAIR AGED 71 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, SREERAGAM,
    VATTUKULAM, KADAPPUR KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686596
76. MATHEW V.J AGED 70 YEARS S/O. MATHEW, PALACKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
    THIRUVANCHIYOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686037
77. C.R. NARAYANAN NAIR AGED 71 YEARS S/O. RAMAN NAIR, REKHA REMYAM,
    KODUNGOOR, VAZHOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686504
78. RAJAGOPAL M.K AGED 69 YEARS S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, NANDANA,
    VADEKKENIRAPPU NEEZHOOR KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686612
79. O.V. SASI AGED 67 YEARS S/O. VELU, OZHATHIL HOUSE, MEENADAM,
    KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686516
80. C.P. MOHANAN NAIR AGED 67 YEARS S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, MANGALATHU
    HOUSE, SH MOUNT P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686006
81. C.O. POULOSE AGED 68 YEARS S/O. AOUSEPH, CHOVARAN HOUSE, MALAYATTUR,
    ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683587
82. K. SUKUMARAN AGED 68 YEARS S/O. KUTTAPPAN, THAKADIYIL HOUSE, THRUTHY
    P.O, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686535
83. REMANI T.R AGED 69 YEARS W/O. KUTTY, KULATHUMATTIL, ROHINI NIVAS,
    PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575
84. A.K. THOMAS AGED 68 YEARS S/O. M.C. KURIYAKOSE, MOOLAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
    MEENADAM P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686516
85. K.E. VARGHESE AGED 68 YEARS S/O. K.J. EISHO, KARUMANKKAL HOUSE,
    CHOZHIYAKAD, CHANNANIKKADU P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686533
86. ABRAHAM P.T AGED 70 YEARS S/O. THOMMAN, PULITHUCKIL, UDUMBANNOOR,
    THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI, PIN - 685595
87. V.K. NARAYANAN NAIR AGED 69 YEARS S/O. SANKARAN NAIR, CHIRAYIL
    HOUSE, MALLOOSSERY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686041
88. JOLLY JOHN AGED 67 YEARS S/O. ULAHANNAN V.K, VATTAKUNNEL HOUSE,
    MONIPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686636
89. PRASANNAKUMAR K AGED 69 YEARS S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI G, SREERAGAM,
    OLAYIL, THEVALLY P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691009
  90. PRADEEP KUMAR VARMA R AGED 66 YEARS S/O. RAJA RAJA VARMA R, MITHILA,
     VRINDHAVAN GARDEN, MANAYILKULANGARA, THIRUMULLAVARAM P.O, KOLLAM - ,
     PIN - 691012
 91. MOHANAN .K AGED 66 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, THEKKEYIL HOUSE, CHATHAKULAM
     P.O, PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690520
 92. P.V. CHACKO AGED 67 YEARS S/O. P.C VARGHEESE, PUTHUPARAMBIL VEEDU,
     CHALIYAKKARA P.O, MOOLAMON, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691305
 93. LALITHA S AGED 73 YEARS W/O. GOPINATHAN K.G, LALITHA BHAVAN,
     MALLASSERY P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689646
 94. S. UMADEVI AGED 68 YEARS W/O. GOPINATHA CHETTIYAR, KRISHNAPRIYA
     MANAYIL, KULANGARA, NEAR THIRURMULLAVARAM TEMPLE, THIRUMULLAVARAM,
     KOLLAM, PIN - 691012
 95. VIJAYAMMA Y AGED 68 YEARS W/O. S. KRISHNAN KUTTY, KANNEL
     VADAKKATHIL, AALUMPEEDIKA P.O, OCHIRA, KERALA, PIN - 690547
 96. A. ABDUL KARIM AGED 75 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, S S VILLA, NETHAJI
     NAGAR, KAVANAD P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691003
 97. S. UDAYAKUMARI DEVI AGED 67 YEARS S/O. BABY, PALATHINKEEZHIL,
     CHIRAKKADAVAM, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690502
 98. M. HARIDASAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN, ARUN NIVAS, KANNI MALA
     THEKKU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601
 99. K. MOHANA CHANDRAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, SIMI BHAVAN,
     OYOOR, KARINGANNOOR P.O, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691518
100. LEKHA V AGED 67 YEARS D/O. K VELUPILLAI, MANNUR KANJIYIL, MOTTACKAL,
     THEVALAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 690524
101. G. MONY AGED 70 YEARS S/O. GOPALAN R, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, PERUMBUZHA
     P.O,KUNDARA , KOLLAM, PIN - 691504

RESPONDENTS:

  1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND
     EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI , 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, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
     ORGANISATION THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
     KALOOR,ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682017
  4. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
     ORGANISATION GROUND FLOOR BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, POTTAKUZHY RD,
     PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
  5. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
     ORGANISATION FORT RD, NEAR EPF OFFICE, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, KERALA ,
     PIN - 670001
  6. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
     ORGANISATION POST OFFICE RD, THIRUNAKARA, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN -
     686001
  7. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
     ORGANISATION POILAKADA RD, TALUK KACHERY, KOLLAM, KERALA , PIN -
     691001
  8. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
      ORGANISATION NADAKKAVU - MINI BYPASS RD, NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE,
     ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673006
  9. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR MILMA BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE P.O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -
     695004
 10. MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD (MRCMPU),
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR HEAD OFFICE PERINGOLAM,
     KUNNAMANGALAM (PO) KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673571
 11. ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD (ERCMPU),
     REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (ERCMPU),HEAD OFFICE,
     EDAPPALLY, KOONAMTHAI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
 12. THIRUVANATHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD
     (TRCMPU), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR (TRCMPU), KSHEERA
     BHAVAN, PATTAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004

     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
22.03.2023 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH &
R.SANJITH, Advocates for the petitioners, SHRI. S.PRASANTH, Advocate for
R2 & R3, SHRI. LATHA ANAND, Advocate for R9, 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.