Dismissed

Sri. B Subramanya Swamy v. the Provident Fund Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023WP/11927/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a request for a minimum past service benefit. The Court held that the petitioner's pension of Rs. 596/- exceeded the statutory threshold, rendering the impugned order legal despite his service being slightly under the 24-year mark. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted as the petition was dismissed.

Sri. B Subramanya Swamy Vs the Provident… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 11927 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 11927 OF 2017 (L-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B. SUBRAMANYA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE G.V. BASAPPA, NO.1031, 9TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR, MYSOORU-570 023.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAIK V.S., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER CENTRAL OFFICE, "BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN" 14, BIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066.

¶13

THE EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, "BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN", NO.109/128, 2ND STAGE, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSOORU-571 019 REP. BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VANITHA K.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)

¶15

¶16

WP No. 11927 of 2017

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 1/2.1.2009 ISSUED BY THE ASST. P.F.COMMISSIONER [PENSION] S.R.O., MYSORE THE TRUE COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MAKRED AS ANNEXURE-K AND THE LETTER DATED 5.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER, S.R.O MYSORE THE ORIGINAL OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-M AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed challenging the order/communication dated 5.5.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent, rejecting the request of the petitioner for a minimum past service benefit of Rs.500/- under para 12(5)(ii).

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Para 12(5)(ii) of Employees' Pension Scheme as amended w.e.f 16.11.1995 does not prescribe minimum of Rs.500/- past service benefit provided an employee has worked for 24 years or more. In the instant case, the petitioner's length of service is 23 years 9 months and 14 days. Para reads as under:

¶23

"12(5)(ii) "The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be subjected to the minimum of Rs.500/- per month, provided the eligible service is 24 years. Provided further, if it is less than 24 years the pension shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of 265/- per month."

¶24

¶25

WP No. 11927 of 2017

¶26

The above provision clearly stipulates that in case of eligible service is 24 years, then minimum total pension i.e. total pension under 12(5)(i)(a) and past service benefit for the member Family Pension Scheme under 12(5)(i)(b) will not be less than Rs.500/-. In the instant case, the pension of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.596/- p.m, which is more than the pension prescribed under para 12(5)(ii). Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, I pas the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Writ petition is dismissed.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

¶31

BKM

Sri. B Subramanya Swamy v. the Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B Subramanya Swamy v. the Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Management of Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.M.S.Rajeshwari Vs State of Karnataka

Bangalore Metropolitan Vs Govindaiah G

The Chief Traffic Manager Vs Sri Sadiq Khan

Jagannath B J Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

V Raman Vs State of Karnataka