Allowed¶46

Sri. Shivakumar. N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2025WP/24324/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

EPF pension merger; Pension Scheme Certificate; consolidation/revised certificate; merger of EPF service; revision of pension; KEONICS service 1985-2002; Reliance Infocom/Reliance Communications/Alcatel Lucent service 01.07.2002-04.12.2014; EPFO Maharashtra; representation dated 27.07.2023; Annexure-H; mandamus to consider representation; Articles 226 and 227; Karnataka High Court 2025; Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur; compliance within two months; respondent No.3 deleted 25.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ of mandamus issued to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure-H) in accordance with law and pass suitable orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶46

Sri. Shivakumar. N Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.2 and 3 are to be directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure-H) seeking merger of EPF service and revision of pension. +1 more

¶21

Ratio / Principle

This Court deemed it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 27.07.2023 in accordance with law and in the manner known to law.

¶39

Key takeaways

A writ of mandamus was issued to respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure-H) in accordance with law and pass suitable orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 24324 of 2025 (L-PF), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), decided 25.09.2025 - Petitioner, who served at KEONICS (1985-2002, 17 years) and thereafter at Reliance Infocom/Reliance Communications and Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (01.07.2002-04.12.2014), held separate Pension Scheme Certificates for each stint. His representation dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure-H) to respondent No.2, the Assistant PF Commissioner (Pension), seeking a consolidated/Revised Pension Scheme Certificate merging both stints (merger of EPF service) and revision of pension went unconsidered. On a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, respondent No.2's counsel contended that any benefit eligible for merger of the Pension Scheme Certificate would be considered in accordance with law. Allowing the petition, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 27.07.2023 in accordance with law and pass suitable orders within two months of receipt of a copy of the order. Respondent No.3 (Maharashtra) was deleted vide order dated 25.09.2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39108 WP No. 24324 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.24324 OF 2025 (L-PF)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI SHIVAKUMAR N. S/O.NANJAPPA N. AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.835, 8^TH CROSS 8^TH MAIN, SRINAGAR BSK 1^ST STAGE BENGALURU-560 050

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

¶12

Digitally signed by B LAVANYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT P F COMMISSIONER (PENSION) NO.570, RAJARAJESHWARI REGENCY NEAR RAJARAJESHWARI TEMPLE 26^TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME CO-OP. SOCIETY LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR MYSORE ROAD BENGALURU-560 098

¶14

THE ASSISTANT P F COMMISSIONER (PENSION) BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN Deleted as per PLOT NO.222, SECTOR NO.3 the Court's order CHARKOP MARKET dated:25.09.2025

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:39108 WP No. 24324 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

MALAD, KANDIVALI (WEST) MAHARASHTRA-400 067

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.RAJENDRA K.R., AGA FOR R-1; SMT.NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-3 IS DELETED V/O. DATED 25.09.2025)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED 27.07.2023 AT ANNEXURE-H FOR SEEKING MERGER OF EPF SERVICE AND REVISION OF PENSION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned

¶25

Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that he joined as a Technical Assistant at KEONICS in the year 1985 and he continued service from 1985 to 2002 for a period of 17 years. Thereafter, the petitioner joined Reliance Infocom

¶27

in the year 2002 as an Assistant Engineer, wherein his tenure was from 2002 to 2013. Subsequently, he worked

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:39108 WP No. 24324 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

at Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. during 2013-2014. Thereafter, the petitioner requested for sanctioning pension, which came to be accorded by respondent No.2 for the services rendered by him at KEONICS. The petitioner accordingly submitted his Pension Scheme Certificate. He also received the Pension Scheme Certificate from the Office of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Maharashtra for the services from 01.07.2002 to 04.12.2014 at Reliance Infocom, Reliance Communications and Alcacet Lucent Managed Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.

¶32

The petitioner made a request to issue

¶33

consolidated/Revised Pension Scheme Certificate, which was not accorded from the office of respondent No.2 on the premise that the reminders have been sent to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 27.07.2023 to respondent No.2 seeking to issue consolidated/Revised Pension Scheme Certificate for

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39108 WP No. 24324 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

merger of both the pension Scheme Certificate. Since this

¶37

was not considered, the petitioner has filed the present petition for inaction of respondent No.2 for not having considered his representation dated 27.07.2023.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 denies the contentions put-forth by learned counsel for petitioner and contends that the petitioner would have been given the benefits as per the requirements of law and if at all any such thing is eligible for merger of Pension Scheme Certificate, the same would be considered in accordance with law.

¶39

Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2, this Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.07.2023 in accordance with law and in the manner known to law.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:39108 WP No. 24324 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) This petition is allowed ;

¶46

ii) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.07.2023 vide Annexure-H in accordance with law and pass suitable orders within a period

¶47

of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶49

LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri. Shivakumar. N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shivakumar. N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanamanta Somanakatti Vs the Managing Director

The Superintendent of Central Excise Vs Sri G Ramachandra G P

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri Babu D

The Warden Govt Gents Medical College Vs Sri. Subba

Sonadhar Mourya Vs the Central Silk Board

M/S Priyanka Products Vs the Managing Director