Kerala High Court
Madhu.C.R vs Employees Provident Fund Organization ... on 25 February, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) NO. 5462 OF 2025 : 1 :
2025:KER:16191
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 6TH PHALGUNA,
1946
WP(C) NO. 5462 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 MADHU.C.R, AGED 62 YEARS
S/O K N RAMACHANDRAN NO16, INDEEVARAM
SAHRUDAYA ROAD EROOR SOUTH P O.,
THRIPUNITHURA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682306
2 SATHEESAN V, AGED 62 YEARS
S/O VASU, 41/2424 ,PANDYALACKAL SREEKALA ROAD
VTC VENNALA P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682028
3 BALAKRISHNAN K P, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O MAMBI K P. KADUPARAMBIL HOUSE CHITTANJOOR
P O., ANJUR THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680523
4 RAJEEV K A, AGED 64 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR C N NIRANJANANAM
KAVUNGALANAT SRINGAPURAM KODUNGALLUR
THRISSHUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680664
5 JUST JOHN LEWIS, AGED 63 YEARS
S/O K J. LEWIS KANIAMPARAMPIL, 50/283 A ROAD
4C PRASANTHI NAGAR VTC EDAPPALLY P O
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682024
6 GEETHA DEVI K N, AGED 68 YEARS
W/O L S SUNDARAM ALANGATTU HOUSE AROOKUTTY ,
AROOKUTTY P O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT- 688535
WP(C) NO. 5462 OF 2025 : 2 :
2025:KER:16191
7 FERMI JOHN, AGED 60 YEARS
S/O K V. JOHN MNRA 161, MATHER NAGAR
CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P O. KALAMASSERY
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682033
BY ADVS.
S.KRISHNA MOORTHY(ERNAKULAM)
V.KRISHNAN KUTTY
BALAGOPALAN B.
PRABHAKARAN MARAR K.V.
SREEDEVI RADHAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER - I (PENSION),
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION HEAD
OFFICE, MINISTRY OF LABOUR&EMPLOYMENT (UNION
OF INDIA ), BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN, 1,
BHIKAJICAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 11006
2 ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
ZONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION, PATTOM ,TRIVANDRUM - 695004
3 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
ZONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION, PATTOM ,TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695004
4 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
ZONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM - 695004
5 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR.P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682017
WP(C) NO. 5462 OF 2025 : 3 :
2025:KER:16191
6 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR.P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682017
7 MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LIMITED, KELTRON HOUSE,
VELLAYAMBALAM
THIRUVANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033
BY ADV NITA N.S,SC
BY ADV M.A.ZOHRA,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 25.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 5462 OF 2025 : 4 :
2025:KER:16191
JUDGMENT
The petitioners were employed under the 7 th
respondent. They retired from service subsequent
to 01.09.2014. They have filed this writ petition for
direction to respondents 1 to 6 to process the Joint
Option Forms preferred by them in the light of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Employees Provident Fund Organisation and
another v. Sunil Kumar B. and others [2022 (7)
KHC 12], within a time frame to be fixed by this
Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employees
Provident Fund Organisation and another
(supra), held as follows:-
"We accordingly hold and direct:-
(i) The provisions contained in the
2025:KER:16191
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 these provisions in the
subsequent sub-paragraphs.
(ii) Amendment to the pension
Scheme brought about by the
notification No.G.S.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.
2025:KER:16191
(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
1st 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 R.C. Gupta
2025:KER:16191
(supra). The scheme as it stood
before 1st September 2014 did not
provide for any cutoff date and thus
those members shall be entitled to
exercise option in terms of paragraph
11(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
2025:KER:16191
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 1st September 2014 without
exercising any option under
paragraph 11(3) of the
preamendment Scheme have already
exited from the membership thereof.
2025:KER:16191
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 1.16 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
2025:KER:16191
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 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
whichever is amendment is made,
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
2025:KER:16191
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
of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-
2025:KER:16191
10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the
above terms."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners and Smt.Nita N.S, learned Standing
Counsel for the EPFO. In the nature of the order I
propose to pass, notice to the 7th respondent is
dispensed with.
3. In the light of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court cited (supra), the
petitioners' Joint Option Forms need to be
processed by respondents 1 to 6.
The writ petition is therefore disposed of
directing the competent among respondents 1 to 6
to process the Joint Option Forms preferred by the
petitioners in accordance with the judgment of the
2025:KER:16191
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employees provident
Fund Organisation and another (supra) within a
period of five months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SB
2025:KER:16191
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE CIRCULAR DATED
01.06.2023
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED
ALONG WITH THE JOINT OPTIONS BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER ON 12.04.2023
Exhibit THE TRUE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS/JOINT
P2(a) OPTION FORM FURNISHED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
ON 12.04.2023
Exhibit THE TRUE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS/JOINT
P2(b) OPTION FORM FURNISHED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER
ON 12.04.2023
Exhibit THE TRUE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS/JOINT
P2(c) OPTION FORM FURNISHED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER
ON 12.04.2023
Exhibit THE TRUE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS/JOINT
P2(d) OPTION FORM FURNISHED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER
ON 12.04.2023
Exhibit THE TRUE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS/JOINT
P2(e) OPTION FORM FURNISHED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER
ON 12.04.2023
Exhibit THE TRUE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS/JOINT
P2(f) OPTION FORM FURNISHED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER
ON 12.04.2023
Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C).N0.3528/2025 DATED 04.02.2025
