Kerala High Court
Rajeev P vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd on 15 November, 2024
2024:KER:85616
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 24917 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 RAJEEV P
SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD, KOZHIKODE BRANCH, (SREE NILAYAM, PURAMENI,
KOZHIKODE), EPF A/C. NO. KR/2575/489
2 ASOKAN P,
MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,
MALAPPURAM BRANCH, (KUNNATH HOUSE, JETTY ROAD,
PUTHIYANIRATH, ELATHUR, KOZHIKODE) EPF A/C. NO.
KR/2575/510
3 SUJATHA N,
MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
WYANAD BRANCH, (VIPANCHIKA, CHEVAYOOR (P.O),
THONDAYAD, KOZHIKODE), EPF A/C. NO. KR/2575/434
4 AJITHKUMAR R,
ACCOUNTS OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD, VAZHUTHACAUD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
(PARAMESWARA MANDIRAM, OLAYIL, KOLLAM), EPF A/C.
NO. KR/2575/465.
5 GOPALAKRISHNAN T.K,
BILL COLLECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD., KOZHIKODE BRANCH, (THEVARKANDY HOUSE,
ARAKKINAR (P.O), KOZHIKODE), EPF A/C. NO.
KR/2575/359
6 BALAGOPALAN P,
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, (MOKERI
HOUSE, P.O. ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE) EPF A/C. NO.
KR/2575/413
BY ADVS.
K.SASIKUMAR
2
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
SRI.P.S.RAGHUKUMAR
SRI.S.ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
HEAD OFFICE, CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES
PENSION BOARD, T.C. NO. 27/156, 157, KALANAVAS,
NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, KUNNUMPURAM, P.B. NO. 85,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
3 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANISATION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004
4 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CO-
OPERATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691 001
5 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI-110 002
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC
SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
SMT.NITA N.S
SRI.S.SUJIN
SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.11.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).25032/2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 25032 OF 2019
PETITIONERS:
1 SANU C.
SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA BRANCH, (CHRIST
NAGAR, POOZHANAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM),
EPF A/C.NO.KR/2575/458.
2 RAJAN M.,
SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD., KANNUR BRANCH, (RASALAYA, KOYONKARA P.O.,
TRIKARIPUR, KASARGOD), EPF A/C.NO.KR/2575/438.
3 SURESHKUMAR G.,
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, (NANDANAM,
T.C.42/898(2), SREENAGAR, SREEVARAHAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), EPF A/C.NO.KR/2575/425.
BY ADVS.
K.SASIKUMAR
SRI.P.S.RAGHUKUMAR
SRI.S.ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.
HEAD OFFICE, CO-BANK TOWERS, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES
PENSION BOARD, T.C.NO.27/156, 157, KALANAVAS,
NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, KUNNUMPURAM, P.B.NO.85,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.
4
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
3 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANISATION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
4 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-
OPERATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691001.
5 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF LABOUR, NEW DELHI-110002.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC
SRI.A.R.GANGADAS
SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA
SRI.S.SUJIN
SMT.NITA N.S
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.11.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).24917/2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
5
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.24917 of 2019 and 25032 of 2019
------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
These two connected writ petitions pertain to the issue
with respect to the retransmission of the Funds from State Co-
operative Bank and District Co-operative Bank Employees Self
Financing Pension Scheme, 2005 to the Employees Pension
Scheme, 1995 under the Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as
the "EPF Act" for brevity).
2. In 2009, the State Co-operative Bank, as well as the
District Co-operative Banks, were excluded from the EPF
Scheme, 1995, and they were transferred to the 2005 Scheme.
The Government also issued an order dated 30.06.2009, in tune
with the earlier order. Those two orders were the subject matter
of challenge before this Court at the hands of the employees,
essentially contending that unilaterally they may not be
transferred from the 1995 Scheme to the 2005 Scheme. By
Ext.P1 judgment, this Court quashed the orders dated
26.05.2009 as well as 30.06.2009, thereby deciding the issue
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
in favour of the employees. The judgment of the learned Single
Judge was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court, and
by Ext.P2 judgment, the judgment of the learned Single Judge
was upheld, also holding that ultimately it is the option of the
employees to continue under the 1995 Scheme or to get
transferred to the 2005 Scheme. Therefore, all depended upon
whether the employee had filed an option or not. However, a
review was filed against Ext.P2, and in the judgment reported
as Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Tvm. V.
Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board,
Trivandrum and Others [2016 (5) KHC 414], a Division
Bench of this Court reviewed the findings in Ext.P2 judgment.
3. It is in the afore circumstances that the prayers in
these two writ petitions are to be considered. As regards W.P.(C)
No.24917 of 2019, the petitioners therein point out that they
have not filed any option for getting transferred to the 2005
Scheme, and therefore, they may be permitted to continue
under the 1995 Scheme with reference to the provisions of the
EPF Act. As regards W.P.(C) No.25032 of 2019, the petitioners
point out that they had filed an application for getting
transferred to the 2005 Scheme, however, such an option was
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
filed without proper understanding of the consequences, and
therefore, they want to withdraw the options filed and may be
permitted to continue under the 1995 Scheme.
4. I have heard Sri.K.Sasikumar, the learned counsel for
the petitioners, Smt.Nita N.S., the learned Standing Counsel for
the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sri.M.Sasindran,
the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and
Sri.Gilbert George Correya, the learned Standing Counsel for
the 1st respondent.
5. It is seen that, as against the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the review application, Special
Leave Petitions were presented before the Apex Court by the
State of Kerala. The SLPs as above have been ultimately
disposed of by an order dated 24.08.2022. The afore order of
the Apex Court reads as under;
"Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the
final figure which emerges is that there are 333 persons
identified. Benefits has thus been extended to another set
of respondents as was denied earlier.
In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant
states that the scheme can be worked out for the aforesaid
number of persons.
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
We are inclined to dispose of the matters in terms as
aforesaid.
If any eligible person still, who is before the Court is left
out, they may also approach the appellant-State and if it
falls within the parameters we are sure the appellant-State
will work out for those number of people also which are
said to be in maximum two digit figures.
The scheme which has now been accepted in terms of the
present order will naturally be in super-session of the
impugned orders.
Liberty is granted to move in case of difficulty."
Thus, it is seen that the Apex Court held that, as regards 333
persons and their claims, which were the subject matter of the
SLPs before the Apex Court, they have to be permitted to
continue under the 1995 Scheme. In the light of the afore, I am
of the view that the petitioners may not be entitled for
continuing in the 1995 Scheme.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners,
Sri.Sasikumar, in such circumstances, made reference to the
earlier order of the Apex Court dated 17.10.2019, which read
as under;
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the course of hearing, a suggestion fell from the Court
that considering the limited number of people who are
before this Court and whose grievance is that they should
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
be governed by the 1995 Pension Scheme and taking into
account that a number of them may have already retired
from service, the appellants may explore the possibility of
a settlement giving the benefit to the respondents before
us of continuing to be governed under the same Scheme.
Learned counsel for the appellants seeks a short
accommodation to obtain instructions.
We have made it clear that this would not entail opening a
new chapter for all other persons who have never litigated
in that behalf.
Learned counsel for the respondents states that as a
matter of fact in view of the impugned orders, these
respondents are so far being governed by the 1995 Scheme
while this may not be so for many others."
In the light of the afore observations, Sri.Sasikumar, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, points out that, ultimately, the Apex
Court order is to be interpreted in such a way that, in cases
where the employees have litigated with respect to their right
for continuance under the 1995 Scheme, they should be
extended the afore benefit. He specifically relies on the 5th
paragraph of the afore order of the Apex Court in support of the
submission.
7. However, I notice that the SLPs have been disposed
of by the order dated 24.08.2022 referred to earlier. The afore
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
order only makes reference to the claim of 333 persons, who
were before the Apex Court.
8. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the
petitioners may not be entitled for the benefits flowing out of
the order dated 24.08.2022 issued by the Apex Court.
Resultantly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON
JUDGE
anm
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24917/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 31.1.2012 IN
W.P.(C) NO. 33727/2011 AND CONNECTED
CASES.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.06.2012 IN WA NO. 1019/2012.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.04.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
07.04.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.04.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.04.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 4TH
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
14.06.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 5TH
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
10.04.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 6TH
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RP No.
992/2012 DATED 27/07/2016
EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
17/10/2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 6575/2014
EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
04/12/2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 6575/2014
EXHIBIT R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
07/03/2022 IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 6575/2014
EXHIBIT R3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
15/07/2022 IN CIVIL APPPEAL No. 6575/2014
EXHIBIT R3(f) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
24/08/2022 IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 6575/2014
AND CONNECTED CASES
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
EXHIBIT R3(g) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
23/08/2024 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THIS
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK
EXHIBIT R3(h) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
16/10/2024 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THIS
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANK
W.P.(C)Nos.24917 of 2019 & 25032 of 2019
2024:KER:85616
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25032/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 31.1.2012 IN
WPC NO.33727/2011 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.06.2012 IN WA NO.1019/2012.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12.04.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
05.04.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
17.04.2019 FORWARDED BY THE 3RD
PETITIONER.
