Joseph Stanley Ml vs Employees Provident Fund ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2820 Ker

                   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. 5460 OF 2023(F)
PETITIONER:

     JOSEPH STANLEY ML, AGED 68 YEARS , S/O MO LOUIS, MARAKKAM VEETIL, N
     PIPELINE ROAD, PALLILAMKARA, HMT COLONY, KALAMASSSERY, ERNAKULAM .,
     PIN - 683503

RESPONDENTS:

  1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL
     PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHANIDHI BHAVAN, NO. 36/655A,
     KALOOR, KOCHI ., PIN - 682017
  2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EPF ORGANIZATION, SUB
     REGIONAL OFFICE, KALOOR, COCHIN, PIN - 682017
  3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
     INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFFI
     MARG, NEW DELHI ., PIN - 110001
  4. PTL ENTERPRISES LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, APOLLO
     TYRES, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683504


     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 Ext.P8 notice issued by the 2nd respondent, and direct the 1st
respondent to remit monthly pension of Rs.6,858/- to the petitioner as
sanctioned in Ext.P5 pension order, pending final disposal of the writ
petition.

     This petition again coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Court's order dated 17.02.2023
and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE, TONY THOMAS
(INCHIPARAMBIL) & E.S.FIROS Advocates for the petitioner the court passed the
following:
                   RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
                 -------------------------------------
         W.P.(C). No.4958, 5300, 5442,5460, 5473,
           5503,5510,5513,5790,5876,5987,6178,
6206,6260,6292,6499,6502,6681,6703,6710,6723,6725,6731 &
                         6740 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 W.P.(C) No.4958 of 2023

vide No.Pension/2022/55893/15785 dated 25.01.2023, the operative portion

of which reads as under:

'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 W.P.(C) No.4958 of 2023

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.

Post after two weeks.

Sd/-

                                                    RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
                                                             JUDGE
      IAP




01-03-2023                      /True Copy/                               Assistant Registrar