Allowed

T. Gopi v. Asst.Commissioner, Epf Organisation

Kerala HC20 Nov 2012WP(C)/28929/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the rejection of a pension application under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. The Court directed the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the petitioner's Form-10D application on condition that the withdrawal benefit with interest is paid.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to consider the Form-10D application afresh on condition that the petitioner pays the withdrawal benefit along with interest within one month.

T. Gopi Vs Asst.Commissioner, Epf Organisation — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/29TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 28929 of 2005 (R)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T.GOPI, S/O.KUTTY SANKARAN NAIR, THENNAT HOUSE, PERUVALLUR P.O., KONDOTTY (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.BINDHU ANTONY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISAYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1806, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 006.

¶11

2. MALAPPURAM WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER STORE LTD. NO. MI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. BY ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION BY SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 28929 of 2005

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P1: COPY OF APPLICATION FOR MONTHLY PENSION DATED 14/8/2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER NO.KR/KK/3843/73/AB 3(1)/7298 DT.3/9/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDNET.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.R1(A): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT IN FORM-19 FOR SETTLEMENT OF P.F.

¶22

EXT.R1(B): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT IN FORM-10C FOR SETTLEMENT OF FAMILY PENSION.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶27

W.P.(C).No.28929 Of 2005

¶28

Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2012.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 order and for a direction directing the 1^st respondent to grant pension to the petitioner under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995.

¶31

The petitioner joined the service of the 2^nd respondent in 1979 and continued service for a period of 20 years till 1999. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dated 14.8.2003 before the 1^st respondent for monthly pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. The application has been rejected by the 1^st respondent vide Ext.P2 order dated 3.9.2003 stating that an amount of Rs.2,235/- has been paid to the petitioner and Contributory Provident Fund vide item No.913/C/00-01 and therefore the petitioner is not eligible for reduced pension under Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. In the circumstance, the petitioner approached seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶32

In paragraph 5 of the the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent it is stated that the petitioner is a member of Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and that he has not settled

¶33

::2::

¶34

W.P.(C).No.28929 Of 2005

¶35

the Provident Fund and EPF benefits before 16.11.1995, i.e., the date of commencement of new scheme. It is further stated that

¶36

it was only on his option and application, the settlement of Rs.2,235/- was made. It is further stated that however, in view of the submission made by the petitioner that he is willing to pay the withdrawal benefit along with interest, the 1^st respondent will consider the Form-10D after submitting withdrawal benefit and interest.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is ready and willing to pay the withdrawal benefit along with interest for consideration of his 10D application afresh.

¶38

In the light of the statement in paragraph 5 & 7 of the counter affidavit, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider 10D application afresh on condition that the petitioner shall pay the withdrawal benefit along with interest as demanded by the 1^st respondent, within a period of one month from today. The 1^st respondent shall dispose of the application within a period of two months thereafter.

¶39

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶40

bkn/-

T. Gopi v. Asst.Commissioner, Epf Organisation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Gopi v. Asst.Commissioner, Epf Organisation

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

Dr. C.N. Jeevan Raj Vs Regionala Provident Fund Commissioner

The Malappauram District Co-Op.Bank Ltd. Vs the Returning Officer and Another

Krishnankutty Vs Govt.of Kerala & Others

Jiju. P Vs Sasimala Kasheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. No. W.22(D) & Others

Vidyadaran Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs the State Transport Authority,Thiruvananthapuram