Kerala High Court
Sreevallabhan .S vs Union Of India on 13 April, 2023
WP(C) No.13664/2023 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Thursday, the 13th day of April 2023 / 23rd Chaithra, 1945
WP(C) NO. 13664 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1. SREEVALLABHAN .S, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN KUTTY NAIR P.V,
P.P.O. NO. KR/KKD/00070902, SWATHI, KOTTAMPARAMBA P.O, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673008
2. E.J. JOSEPH, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. E.D. JOSEPH, P.P.O.
NO.KR/KKD/00070945, EATTATHOTTAM HOUSE, PCSH CROSS ROAD, PAROPPADY,
MARIKKUNNU P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673012
3. P. VASANTHA, AGED 66 YEARS, C/O. P. NANU, P.P.O. NO.
KR/KKD/00070922, VASANTHAM, CHERINCAL, KARANCHOOR P.O, KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673571
4. B.S. USHAKUMARI, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. B. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, P.P.O.
NO. KR/KKD/00070992, USHAS, KOTTAMPARAMBA P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673008
5. DINESAN V.P, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. V.P. BALAN (LATE),
P.P.O.NO.KR/KKD/00071072, AMBADI HOUSE, KOTTAMPARAMBA P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
6. LEELA T.P, AGED 63 YEARS, C/O. SAMMIKUTTY, P.P.O.NO.KR/KKD/00071074,
THACHORAKKAL HOUSE, PAYAMBRA P.O, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673571
7. C. PATHUTTY, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. E.P. KUNHABDULLA,P.P.O.
NO.KR/KKD/00070994, EDAVANAPOIL HOUSE, ERAVAVATTOOR P.O, (VIA)
PERAMBRA, PIN - 673525
8. A.KABEER ,AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.M.ABDUL KADER (LATE),
P.P.O.NO.KR/KKD/00070901, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARAKANDIYIL, KARANTHUR
P.O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673571
9. SUBAIDA V, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. K.K. BRAHIM, P.P.O.
NO.KR/KKD/00071082,RESIDING AT VELLENKANDY, VELLIPARAMBA P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
10. T.K. SAROJINI, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. GOPALAN R., P.P.O. NO.
KR/KKD/00070900, SAGI NILAYAM, MADAPALLI, COLLEGE P.O, VADAKARA, PIN
- 673102
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
EMPLOYMENT,NEWDELHI REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PIN - 110001
2. 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, P.B. NO. 1806, ERANHIPALAM(PO),
KOZHIKODE KERALA, PIN - 673006
4. CENTRE FOR WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT (CWRDM)
KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE
WP(C) No.13664/2023 2/6
DIRECTOR, PIN - 673571
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 Exhibit P1 notification to the extent to
which same is prejudicial to the interests of the petitioners and direct
the respondents 2 and 3 to ensure not to curtail/limit/stop the higher
pension that is being received by the petitioners, under the provisions of
the employees' pension scheme,1995, subject to the outcome of the above
writ petition.
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
M/S. R.SANJITH & C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH, Advocates for the petitioners, the
court passed the following:
WP(C) No.13664/2023 3/6
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 13664 of 2023
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of April, 2023
ORDER
The learned DSGI takes notice for the 1st respondent. Smt. Nita N.S.,
the learned Standing Counsel, takes notice for respondents 2 and 3.
Sri. P.V. Anoop, the learned counsel, takes notice for the 4th respondent.
2. This Court had occasion to consider identical issues in W.P.(C)
Nos.4958/2023 and connected cases, and an interim order was passed on
01.03.2023. The said order reads as under:-
"Petitioners herein are persons covered under the provisions of
the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
These writ petitions are filed complaining that the respondents, by
misconstruing the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in EPF
Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022
SCC Online SC 1521), are discontinuing/curtailing/reducing the pension
that was being received by the petitioners and that too without hearing
them.
2. The Standing Counsel appearing for the EPF had sought
time for getting instructions, and all the matters were posted today for
considering the grant of the interim order.
3. I find that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, with
the approval of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, has issued a
directive vide No.Pension/2022/55893/15785 dated 25.01.2023, the
operative portion of which reads as under:
WP(C) No.13664/2023 4/6
W.P.(C) No. 13664 of 2023
'8. Utmost care should be taken to identify such cases where
higher pension was granted on account of judgment of any Court.
In such cases, a favorable order shall be obtained from the
concerned Court citing the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated
04.11.2022 before going ahead with stopping/restoration of
pension to wages up to ceiling of Rs.5000 or Rs.6500/-.'
4. I also find that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.(C).No.4958/2023, it is stated that the
pension in respect of the petitioners therein was stopped inadvertently
due to some technical glitches and when the same was brought to the
notice of the respondents the pension in respect of the petitioners
therein were immediately released.
5. Having considered the grievance of the petitioners and
taking note of their submission that the pension received by them was
being stopped/reduced abruptly, this Court had directed the
respondents not to precipitate the issue until the issue is taken up and
heard today.
6. When the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri.N.N
Sugunapalan, and Sri.S.Gopakumaran Nair, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the EPF Organisation, submitted that they require further
time to respond to the contentions raised by the petitioners in these
writ petitions.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urges
that despite the directions issued by this Court, not to precipitate the
issues until the request for interim relief sought by the petitioners is
taken up and considered; the respondents have
curtailed/reduced/stopped the pension that was hitherto being received.
It is submitted that there is absolutely no justification on the part of the
respondents in initiating such action.
Having considered the submissions, as the matter is being
adjourned at the request of the respondents and as the matter is under
active consideration of this Court, the respondents shall ensure that
they shall not curtail/limit/stop the pension that was being received by
the petitioners in these writ petitions without getting specific orders
from this Court."
WP(C) No.13664/2023 5/6
W.P.(C) No. 13664 of 2023
The benefits of the said order shall be extended to the petitioners in
this case as well.
Post after six weeks.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
avs
WP(C) No.13664/2023 6/6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13664/2023
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO
PENSION/2022/56259/16541 DATED 20/02/2023 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
