Disposed

Smt Shylaja S C v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2023WP/23902/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking higher pension and contributions based on actual salary. The court reserved liberty for petitioners to approach the EPFO Regional Officer following the Apex Court's order in SLP Nos. 8658-8659/2019.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to submit representation within two months; authorities to dispose within one month; Writ Petition disposed of following Apex Court order.

Smt Shylaja S C Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43312 WP No. 23902 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO.23902 OF 2019 (L-PF)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SHYLAJA S.C., AGED 41 YEARS, W/O CHANDRASHEKHARA B.M., DY.MANAGER (D.T.), EPF NO.KN/MYS/0010126/0000000890 UAN NO.100355626396

¶9

PRADEEP KUMAR JADHAV, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O SRI RAMA SHETTY, ADMIN. SUPERINTENDENT, EPF NO.KN/MYS/0010126/0000000956 UAN NO.100274681436

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

C.H.PUTTASWAMY AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE HONNAPPA, SUPERVISOR (PRODUCTION), EPF NO.KN/MYS/0010126/0000000361 UAN NO:100283431949

¶12

SMT. VIJAYAMMA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O SRI B R PRAKASH, SENIOR TECHNICIAN, EPF NO:KN/MYS.0010126/0000000257 UAN NO:100405110858

¶13

SRI SHIVALINGAYYA G.L., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LINGAYYA, SR. LAB TECHNICIAIN,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43312 WP No. 23902 of 2019

¶15

EPF NO.KN/MYS/0010126/0000000131 UAN NO:100352165703

¶16

ALL THE PETITIONERS CAN BE SERVED THROUGH C.H. PUTTASWAMY, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O LATE HONNAPPA, WORKING AS SUPERVISOR (PRODUCTION), MILK UNION LIMITED, PRODUCT DAIRY, GEJJALAGERE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

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

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI - 110 001, BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL P.F. COMMISSIONER (HQ) PENSION, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 066.

¶22

THE REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.109-128, 2^ND STAGED, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 019.

¶23

THE ASST. P.F. COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43312 WP No. 23902 of 2019

¶25

BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.109-128, 2^ND STAGED, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 019.

¶26

THE ASST. P.F. COMMISISONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NO.109-128, 2^ND STAGED, GAYATHRIPURAM, MYSURU - 570 019.

¶27

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANDYA DISTRICT CO OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS' SOCIETIES' UNION LIMITED, PRODUCT DAIRY, GEJALAGERE, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. GURURAJ YADRAVI., CGC FOR R1 & R2; SMT.NALINI VENKATESH., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; SRI B.L.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶31

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

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Sri.V.S.Naik., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Nalini Venkatesh., learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43312 WP No. 23902 of 2019

¶35

and Sri.B.L.Sanjeev., learned counsel for respondent No.6 have appeared in person.

¶36

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶37

following reliefs:

¶38

a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ or direction quashing the impugned letter/ communication bearing Reference No. KN/MN/PF/SRO(Mys) 5/5/1389 dated: 24.10.2017 and Reference No.KN/PF/RO/MYS/ACCTS.6(5)/78/2018-19 dated:06.12.2018, issued by the fourth and fifth respondents respectively;

¶39

b. To declare that the petitioners are entitled to get higher pension on the basis of pensionable salary reckoned in accordance with their actual salary from the date of their joining the Pension Scheme under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952;

¶40

c. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 to accept the payment of contribution to the Pension Fund under the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995, equivalent to 8.33% on the basis of actual salary of the Petitioners for reckoning their pensionable salary with retrospective effect,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:43312 WP No. 23902 of 2019

¶43

i.e., from the date the petitioners have joined the Employees' Pension Scheme;

¶44

d. Issue any other writ, declaration, order or direction appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

¶45

Learned counsel for the respective parties jointly submits that the Writ Petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION AND ORS. VS. SUNIL KUMAR B AND ORS - SLP Nos.8658-

¶46

8659/2019 disposed of on 04.11.2022 , reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Regional Officer of the Employees' Provident Fund Organization.

¶47

Reserving such liberty to the petitioners, the Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the order dated:04.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP.Nos.8658-8659/2019.

¶48

The petitioners are at a liberty to submit the representation within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order and if such an representation is

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:43312 WP No. 23902 of 2019

¶51

made, the authorities shall dispose of the representation within

¶52

one month thereof.

¶53

Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

MRP/TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10

Smt Shylaja S C v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shylaja S C v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka State Road Vs Naveenkumar M R

Executive Engineer Vs D Basavaraj

M.P.Mahesha Vs the Divisional Controller

The Range Forest Vs Sri T Hanumantappa

Dayananda Murthy K N Vs Sri Padmavathi Marketing

The Divisional Controller Ksrtc Vs Sri.Syed Hussain