Kerala High Court
Baby M.P vs Shri.Andrew Prabhu on 21 August, 2023
Cont. of Court Case (Civil) No.2172 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1945
CON.CASE(C) NO. 2172 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2018 IN W.P.(C).No.29888/2016 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/PETITIONER
NOS.3,29,30,49,50,68,71,88,97,104,106,116,135,166,186,202,203,210,
277,287,289,294,296,300,308,316,323,324,325,326,331,338,339,341,
356,357,363,373,378,380,431,432 & 437:
1 BABY M.P.
AGED 66 YEARS, MATHARA HOUSE, VENOLA P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-683 556.
2 SIVARAMAKRISHNAN M.
AGED 67 YEARS, REVATHY MADAVAMPAT HOUSE, MANNUR P.O.,
KOZHIKODE673 328.
3 SOMAN V.
AGED 68 YEARS, MUDANTHANNI HOUSE, SMARTO ROAD,
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.
4 KURIAKOSE P.P.
AGED 67 YEARS, PUNNACHALIL HOUSE, KANNANKULNAGARA,
VAIKOM ROAD,TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301.
5 M.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR
AGED 66 YEARS, INDUVIHAR, THEKKUMBHAGAM,
KAILAS NAGAR,TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682 301.
6 K.P.MANOHARAN
AGED 65 YEARS, KUNDOOR HOUSE, UDYAMPEROOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM-682 307.
Cont. of Court Case (Civil) No.2172 of 2020
7 K.A.VARGHESE
AGED 64 YEARS, KATTUNILATH, PALARIVATTOM,
ALLINADA, VYLOPIILI ROAD, KOCHI-682025.
8 A.CHELLAPPAN
AGED 69 YEARS, 26/541 (58/902), RESHMI, FRIENDS NAGAR,
COCHIN-682 013.
9 N.I.SASI
AGED 68 YEARS, NEKATHIL HOUSE, KUZHUPPILLY,
AYYAMPILLY P.O., ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 501.
10 K.V.THOMAS
AGED 66 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE K.V., KARATHOTTATHIL,
KAITHOTHE ROAD, PALARIVATTAM,P O KOCHI 682 025.
11 T.K.GOPI
AGED 64 YEARS, THAIVEPPIL HOUSE, OLANAD, VARAUZHA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 517.
12 K.V.VARKEY
AGED 67 YEARS, ALUMKAL HOUSE, VELLOOR P.O., PAMPADY,
KOTTAYAM-686 501.
13 IYPPU KUTTY P.P.
AGED 66 YEARS, PALACHUVATTIL HOUSE, PUTHENCRUZ P.O.,
ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 308.
14 PRABHAKARAN E
AGED 65 YEARS, 50/1494(56/1216), GAYATHRI, VIDHYANAGAR,
KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI,682 020.
15 M.K.POULOSE
AGED 68 YEARS, MENACHERY HOUSE, NO.41/1223, S PIPILANE
ROAD,PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI,682 025.
16 SUDHAKARAN P.V.
AGED 68 YEARS, VINAYAKA, VINOBA NAGAR, CHILAVANOOR,
KADAVANTHRA P.O., KOCHI-682 020.
17 SHANMUGHA DASAN M.K.
AGED 67 YEARS, SHERYAS, VINOBHA NAGAR,
CHILAVANOOR-682 020.
18 SASIDHARAN C
AGED 66 YEARS, SREEPOORNA, KADAVIL ROAD, THYKOODAM
COCHIN,682 019.
Cont. of Court Case (Civil) No.2172 of 2020
19 P.VISWANATHAN PILLAI
AGED 72 YEARS, VADAKKINEDATH HOUSE, SPW ROAD,
THAIKKATTUKARA, ALUVA-683 106.
20 N.VISWESWARAN
AGED 71 YEARS, NELLUVELIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITOOR P.O.,
KOCHI-682 027.
21 SASIDHARAN NAIR K.R.
AGED 66 YEARS, KALNAGARA HOUSE,JYOTHI NAGAR, EDAPPALLY
NORTH, ERNAKULAM-682 024.
22 MUKUNDANKUTTY A.G.
AGED 66 YEARS, ARCHANA, VNRA-073, VIDYANAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.
23 P.R.USHA
AGED 69 YEARS, PRATHIBHA, 27/2163, YUVAJANA SAMAJAM
ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI-682 020.
24 JOEJOE PETER
28/2514A, THUSHARAM, RAVEENDRAN ROAD, 2ND CROSS,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 020.
25 M.P.GOPINATHAN
AGED 71 YEARS, ASWATHI HOUSE, NO.27/2129, SMARTO
ROAD,KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.
26 A.B.MOHAMED SHAREEF
AGED 71 YEARS, HOUSE NO.36/2986, AMBAZHATTUNGAL,
AZAD ROAD, KALOOR,KOCHI-682 017, .
27 JOSEH JOHN
AGED 69 YEARS, AIKARA MADOM, KOITHRA ROAD,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O. KOCHI 682 036.
28 P.VINAYA KUMAR
AGED 66 YEARS, DIVYASREE, 57/46B1,
ELENJERIL ROAD,KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682 020.
29 SYRIAC CHERIAN
AGED 68 YEARS, ELANJIKKAL HOSUE, TAGORE NAGAR,
KOCHI-682 020,.
30 CHERIAN GEROGE
AGED 68 YEARS, H.NO.XXVIII/929, PANAVILAGAM,
KADAVANTHARA,ERNAKULAM-682 020,.
Cont. of Court Case (Civil) No.2172 of 2020
31 UNNIKRISHNAN K.
AGED 71 YEARS, VANDANA, KAITHOTH ROAD,
PALARIVATTAM-682 025.
32 GEORGE THOMAS ROY
AGED 68 YEARS, M1/31, PUTHENPURACKAL, INDIRA NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA,ERNAKULAM-682 020.
33 P.SUKUMARAN
AGED 68 YEARS, SEREYAS, ST.BENEDICT IIND CROSS ROAD,
ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-682 018.
34 ABOOBACKER P.
AGED 69 YEARS, HOUSE NO.414, MIG, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
COCHIN-682 036
35 JOSE MATHEW
AGED 67 YEARS, PEEDIAKAL, KONTHURUTHI, THEVARA P.O.,
COCHI-682 013.
36 JOHN V.J.
AGED 65 YEARS, VEENAPLACKAL HOUSE, VII/354,
KATTITHARA ROAD, MARAUD P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 304.
37 N.NEELAKANTAN
AGED 70 YEARS, 39/4205, BHAVANI, M.G.ROAD,RAVIOPURAM,
COCHIN-682 011, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 6A, CHELOOR
PUSHPAKA FLAT RAVIPURAM ROAD, OPPOSITE CHAITHANYA EYE
HOSPITAL, KOCHI 682 015.
38 SREEKUMARAN NAIR S.
AGED 66 YEARS, SIVASREE, GANDHI LANE, PADAM STOP,
KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682 020.
39 E.V.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
AGED 70 YEARS, M-3/87, SREESYLAM, INDIRA NAGAR,
KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI-682 020.
40 P.M.SUKUMARAN
AGED 69 YEARS, USHUS, PUNNANIKATHU, 41/599 C,
ADV.EASWARA IYER ROAD, PULLEPPADY ERNAKULAM 682 035.
41 GOPINATHAN S.
AGED 69 YEARS, SANGEETH BHAVAN, KALAVATH ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM P.O.,KOCHI-682 025,.
42 C.SRINIVASAN
26/2326A, COLONY ROAD, THEVARA SOUTH, KOCHI-13,.
Cont. of Court Case (Civil) No.2172 of 2020
43 K.S.MOHANAN
AGED 64 YEARS, KUZHIVELIPARAMBIL, N.ADUVASSERY,
ERNAKULAM683 578.
BY ADV K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)
RESPONDENT/FOURTH RESPONDENT:
SHRI.ANDREW PRABHU,
FATHERS NAME AND AGE IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
SUB REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/685-A, BHAVISHYA
NIDHI BHAWAN KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017.
BY ADV SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS & C.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
==========================================
Contempt of Court Case (Civil) No.2172 of 2020
[arising out of the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P. (C) No.29888/2016 ]
=================================
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2023
JUDGMENT
Alexander Thomas, J.
The afore captioned contempt of court case alleges non-
compliance of the directions and orders passed by this Court, as per
the judgment dated 12.10.2018, rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.(C) No.29888/2016. Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal,
the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund
Organization (EPFO), submits that the aforesaid judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court was challenged before the Apex Court,
which has now culminated in judgment dated 04.11.2022 of the Apex
Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143 to 8144 of 2022, arising out of
SLP(C) Nos. 8658 to 8659 of 2019, arising out of the present W.P.
(C), reported in 2022 (6) KLT 234 (SC), wherein the Apex Court, in
para No.44, has modified many of the directions of the Division
Bench of this Court, which reads as follows:-
"44. We accordingly hold and direct:-
(i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R.609(E) dated
22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund
are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as
applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on
Cont. of Court Case (Civil) No.2172 of 2020
these provisions in the subsequent sub-paragraphs.
(ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification
no. GS.R.609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the
exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the
regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments
shall be in the manner as we have already directed.
(iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to
paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1 st
September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph
11(4) of the pension scheme.
(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 crystalised in the judgment of this
Court in the case of RC 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 paragraph11 (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
There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment scheme,
which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts
Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so
but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities,
ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option Time to exercise
option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances,
shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this
direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India.
Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied
with.
(v) The employees who had retired prior to 1 st September 2014 without
exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme
have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled
to the benefit of this judgment.
(vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September 2014 upon
exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered
by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood
prior to the amendment of 2014.
(vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.18 per
cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds 15,000/- per month as
an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultra
vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained
above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six
months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the
Cont. of Court Case (Civil) No.2172 of 2020
scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other
legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing
the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what
steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers
of the scheme to make necessary amendment For the aforesaid period of six
months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the
employees' contribution shall be as stop gap measure The said sum shall be
adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made.
(viii) We do not find any flaw in altering the basis for computation of
pensionable salary.
(ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of
R.C.Gupta (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3)
(pre-amendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall
implement the directives contained in the said judgment within a period of
eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph.
(x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt
Petition (C) Nos.619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016
are disposed of in the above terms."
2. The learned Standing counsel for the EPFO submits that
the aforesaid directions of the Apex Court will be complied with by the
respondent-EPFO by examining the claims of the present petitioner
and action in that regard may duly be finalised without any further
delay.
3. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case it is
ordered that the compliance action in that regard shall be duly
finalised by the respondent-EPFO as early as possible, at any rate
within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
No other orders and directions are called for.
4. Sri. K. Ravi, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, further submits that, based on the conduct of the
Cont. of Court Case (Civil) No.2172 of 2020
respondent - EPFO officials, it has given rise to genuine and
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the
respondent-EPFO may unduly prolong the abovesaid process. It is
made clear that in case of any such eventuality, the petitioner will be
at liberty to invoke appropriate remedies, in the manner known to
law.
With these observations and directions, the above contempt of
court case (civil) will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
Skk//22082023
Cont. of Court Case (Civil) No.2172 of 2020
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2172/2020
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:-
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
WPC NO. 29888/2016 DATED 12.10.2018.
