Allowed

K.T.Abdul Razak v. the Employees Provident Fund Organisatio

Kerala HC21 Dec 2011WP(C)/490/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a retired employee is entitled to pension from the date of retirement, not from when the employer forwards documents. The employer cannot penalize the employee for the delay in submitting pension papers.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; impugned proceedings quashed; Respondents directed to disburse arrears of pension for the period from 16.3.2004 to 6.5.2004 within one month.

K.T.Abdul Razak Vs the Employees Provident… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 490 of 2006(G) ------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

¶7

K.T.ABDUL RAZAK, RETIRED EMPLOYEE (VRS), (FACT LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL), M-93, KOTTAMMAL P.O., CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682 033.

¶8

BY ADV. DR.K.B.MOHAMEDKUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.FIROZ K.M.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

THE EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, (PENSION), EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, 36/685A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.

¶13

THE SECRETARY, THE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS OF TRAVANCORE EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND, UDYOGAMANDAL.

¶14

ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1,2 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION FOR R1,2 SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC FOR R3 SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR F3

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.C. NO. 490 of 2006

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR MONTHLY PENSION IN FORM 10 D(EPF) DATED 11.3.2004.

¶20

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY FORM 10D AS PRESCRIBED UNDER EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME 1995.

¶21

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER DATED 20.4.2004.

¶22

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 5.7.2004 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) ERNAKULAM.

¶23

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY THE PENSION PAYMENT FORM PART I

¶24

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSSED TO THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER DATED 14.7.2004.

¶25

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER DATED 14.9.2004.

¶26

EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8.11.2004 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.2.2005.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

[ True copy ]

P.S. to Judge.

ul/-

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶34

W.P(C) No. 490 of 2006

¶35

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21^st day of December, 2011.

¶36

The petitioner retired from the services of the 3^rd respondent by availing of benefits of a voluntary retirement scheme on 15.3.2004. The petitioner has been given pension under the Employees Pension Scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 only with effect from 7.5.2004 on the ground that the 3^rd respondent forwarded the pension papers of the petitioner to the Provident Fund Organization only on that date. The petitioner challenges the same on the grouond that he is entitled to pension from the date of his retirement and he cannot be denied the same for the delay, if any, committed by the employer in forwarding the pension papers. He seeks the following reliefs:

¶37

“i. to call for the records leading to Exts. P1, P3, P4 and P5 and direct the respondents to sanction monthly pension to the petitioner with interest from his date of retirement by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

¶38

ii. to quash Exts. P4, P5, P7 and P9 to the extent it denies monthly pension to the petitioner from the date of his retirement by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.”

¶39

Exts. P4, P5, P7 and P9 are the proceedings of the respondent in that regard.

¶40

The only question arising for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to pension

¶41

W.P(C) No. 490 of 2006 -: 2 :-

¶42

under the Employees Pension Scheme with effect from 15.3.2004 or 7.5.2004.

¶43

The contention of the Provident Fund Organization in respect thereof is that under clause 20(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme, the employer is liable to send within 15 days of close of each month a return in respect of the employees leaving the service of the employer during the preceding month. The employer did not comply with the same and the papers regarding the retirement of the petitioner was received only on 7.5.2004. Consequently, the Provident Fund Organization is liable to pay pension to the petitioner only with effect from 7.5.2004 is the contention raised.

¶44

I have heard the parties.

¶45

Counsel for the Provident Fund Organization could not point out any provision either in the Act or in the Scheme empowering the Provident Fund Organization to restrict pension to a retired employee only with effect from the date when the pension papers have been received by the organization. As per the scheme, a retired employee is entitled to pension under the scheme with effect from the date of retirement. Admittedly, the date of retirement of the petitioner is 15.3.2004. The petitioner cannot be penalised for the delay in forwarding the pension papers by the employer. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to receive pension under the Employees Pension Scheme with effect from 15.3.2004 and

¶46

W.P(C) No. 490 of 2006 -: 3 :-

¶47

not with effect from 7.5.2004 as contended by the Provident Fund Organization.

¶48

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are quashed. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to see that the arrears of pension due to the petitioner for the period from 16.3.2004 to 6.5.2004 is disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶49

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶50

Tds/

K.T.Abdul Razak v. the Employees Provident Fund Organisatio

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Abdul Razak v. the Employees Provident Fund Organisatio

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

Celine Moses Vs the Deputy Tahsildar(Rr), Kanayannur

Yimi S.Nath Vs State of Kerala

Pavithran Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs the Intelligence Inspector

V.R.Jayalatha Vs the Union Bank

A.Rasheed Vs Uco Bank & Another