Kerala High Court
Jose C.Kurian vs Union Of India on 17 October, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2024:KER:77953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 22122 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 JOSE C.KURIAN,
AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. KURIAN.K.C.,
AMBALATHRA, NEW ROAD, C.N.P.NAGAR,
KOCHI (PPO NO. KR/KCH/00120358),
PIN - 682033.
2 P.P SULAIMAN,
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. PAREED,
PUTTINGAL HOUSE,PUTHUPALLIPURAM,
CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY
(PPO NO. KR/KCH/00120359),
PIN - 682033.
3 ANTONY HEXIL D'SOUZA,
AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. HYACINT D'SOUZA,
HYLI COTTAGE, EDAKOCHI, ERNAKULAM
(PPO NO. KR/KCH/00120267).,
PIN - 682010.
4 RAJAMMA.N.A.,
AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. MANI.P.A.,
NJANAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, NADAMA,
THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM (PPO NO.
R/KCH/00120513)., PIN - 682301.
5 THANKAMANI C.S. ,
AGED 63 YEARS, W/O. RAJAN K,
THUNDIYIL HOUSE, MOLUMPURAM,
EROOR SOUTH, THRIPUNITHURA,
W.P.(C)No.22122 of 2024
2024:KER:77953
:2:
ERNAKULAM (PPO NO. KR/KCH/00119739).,
PIN - 682306.
BY ADV PRAKASH M.P.
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 FUND 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.
BY ADVS.
SRI. SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL,
SMT.LATHA ANAND
SRI.RENJITH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.22122 of 2024
2024:KER:77953
:3:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024
The petitioners' request for revision of pension on the
basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another v.
Sunil Kumar B. and others [2022 SCC Online SC 1521] has
not been allowed and the petitioners continue to be paid
pension at a reduced rate in spite of their entitlement for higher
pension.
2. The pleadings in the writ petition would indicate that
the petitioners had earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C)
No.7015 of 2023 and this Court, as per Ext.P6 judgment dated
02.11.2023, disposed of the writ petition directing the
2024:KER:77953
respondents to take up the Joint Option for revision of the
pension in the light of the judgment in Sunil Kumar B (supra)
and pass orders within a period of four months.
3. In compliance of Ext.P6 judgment, the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner issued Ext.P7 communication to
the petitioners. By Ext.P7, the Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner informed the petitioners that the documents
made mention therein are not made available for processing
the application of the petitioners. In order to avoid further delay
in submission of revised wage details, the petitioners were
advised to take up the matter with their employer.
4. It is evident from the pleadings and arguments that
the Employees Provident Fund Organisation is demanding
source documents for the period from 16.11.1995 to 2002-2023
for wage verification in accordance with the date of joining of
the petitioners. The monthly wise split up of arrears paid along
with the ECR for 60 months is also sought for.
2024:KER:77953
5. Counsel for the petitioners would urge that to revise
and fix the pension eligibility of the petitioners, the Employees
Provident Fund Organisation requires only wage particulars of
the last 60 months. Therefore, their seeking information relating
back to the year 1995, is only intended to delay and defeat the
claims of the petitioners.
6. Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, on the other hand, would submit that from the
year 2004 to 2009, the contributions of the Provident Fund
Pension were based on the statutory wages. Thereafter, bulk
payment has to be appropriated towards the arrears of
contributions over the entire salary. It is for the appropriation of
bulk amounts paid, that details are sought for.
7. Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund
Organisation submitted that there were defaults in making such
payments. Standing Counsel representing the Employer, on the
other hand, would submit that all details were forwarded to the
2024:KER:77953
Employees Provident Fund Organisation, including split up in
respect of the bulk payment made. The Employees Provident
Fund Organisation is demanding further particulars
unnecessarily.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners
and the respective learned Standing Counsel representing
respondents 2 to 4. I have also heard the learned Deputy
Solicitor General-in-Charge representing the 1st respondent.
9. The prayer of the petitioners is to command the
respondents to revise and disburse the pension payable to the
petitioner without any salary ceiling under the Employees
Pension Scheme, 1995. The delay in revising the pension
appears to be due to the fact that the Employees Provident
Fund Organisation is demanding documents relating back to
the year 1995. The employer would submit that the employer
has provided all available documents / materials to the
Employees Provident Fund Organisation. In view of the said
2024:KER:77953
submission, there is no point in further delaying the processing
of the applications of the petitioners. The petitioners are
persons who retired from service in the year 2020.
Considering the above facts, the writ petition is disposed
of directing the 3rd respondent to process the Joint Option
submitted by the petitioners and conclude the proceedings with
the available records within a period of one month.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ams
2024:KER:77953
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22122/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
22.12.2022 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION IN
RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF HTE DECLARATION OF THE
EMPLOYER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02.11.2023 IN W.P (C) NO. 7015/2023 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
29.02.2024 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
28.02.2024 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
09.03.2024 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
