Kerala High Court
Jose C.Kurian vs 1. Union Of India on 1 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Wednesday, the 1st day of March 2023 / 10th Phalguna, 1944
WP(C) NO. 7015 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1. JOSE C.KURIAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. KURIAN.K.C., AMBALATHRA, NEW
ROAD, C.N.P.NAGAR, KOCHI , PIN - 682033
2. SULAIMAN.P.P, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. PAREED, PUTTINGAL
HOUSE,PUTHUPALLIPURAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY, PIN - 682033
3. ANTONY HEXIL D'SOUZA, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. HYACINT D'SOUZA, HYLI
COTTAGE, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682010
4. RAJAMMA.N.A, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. MANI.P.A., NJANAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE,
NADAMA, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682301
5. THANKAMANI C.S, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. RAJAN K, THUNDIYIL HOUSE,
MULAMPURAM, EROOR SOUTH, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM , PIN - 682306
RESPONDENTS:
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI , PIN - 110001
2. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI
BHAVAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI,PIN - 110066
3. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EPF ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL
OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, COCHIN, PIN - 682017
4. ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' UNION LTD NO. E-150
(D), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, EDAPPALLY,
COCHIN , PIN - 682024
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 issue an interim order, directing the 3rd respondent to revise
and disburse the pension payable to the petitioners without any salary
ceiling, under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, during the pendency 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
SRI. PRAKASH M.P., Advocate for the petitioners, the court passed the
following:
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C). Nos.6779, 6811, 6905, 6941,6990, 7015
& 7043 of 2023
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2023
ORDER
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:
W.P.(C) Nos.6811 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 favourable 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.
W.P.(C) Nos.6811 of 2023
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.
Post along with W.P.(C) No.4958 of 2023 and post after two weeks.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
IAP
