Disposed

K.T.Mathew, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jul 2019WP(C)/14662/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala directed the Kerala State Cooperative Employees Pension Board to decide within six weeks whether to transfer petitioners' pension corpus to EPFO or pay pension directly, while counting service under the 1971 Scheme according to the 1995 Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Directed Pension Board Secretary to decide on pension transfer or direct payment within six weeks and count service from 1971 Scheme.

K.T.Mathew, Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.14662 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 K.T.MATHEW, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, KURUVANTHANATHU HOUSE, KOLANI P.O, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 608.

¶8

2 JOSE SEBASTIAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. SEBASTIAN, VALIPLACKKAL HOUSE, KANCHIYAR P.O, KANCHIYAR, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 511

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SMT.BHANU THILAK SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.S.PRAVEEN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR AND REHABILITATION,. GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

3 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶14

4 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARAN ABHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUDU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014

¶15

5 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CHINMAYA HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶16

WP(C).No.14662 of 2019

¶17

¶18

6 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIS, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 603.

¶19

7 THE IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE, IDUKKI COLONY PO., PIN 685 602 REP BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶20

8 THE PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, HEAD OFFICE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O, PIN 685 602.

¶21

*ADDL THE SUB REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, R9 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI, ADITHYA SABARI TOWER, THIRUNAKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶22

***(ADDL.R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/6/19 IN I.A.1/19)**

¶23

BY ADVS. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC

¶24

OTHER PRESENT:

¶25

SMT.C.S.SHEEJA, SR.GP

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

WP(C).No.14662 of 2019

¶28

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioners, who are stated to have retired on attaining superannuation from the 7^th respondent - Bank, pray that the respondents be directed to count their service from the date they joined the Family Pension Scheme 1971, for the purpose of eligible pension under the Kerala Cooperative Employees Pension Scheme, 1995; and that the Pension Board be directed to transfer the Pension Contribution made by the Bank to the 9^th respondent - Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO for short), so as to enable them to get the pension.

¶31

In fact, I have considered these issues in another writ petition namely, W.P.(C)No.32787/2018 relating to Ernakulam District Co-operative Bank and after an assessment of the factual factors available in the said case, which are similar to those presented, I had taken a decision, which also had the support of learned counsel for the petitioners therein, that it is better to allow the Pension Board itself to decide whether they will transfer the amounts to the EPFO or whether they will grant the Pension under

¶32

WP(C).No.14662 of 2019

¶33

¶34

the 1995 Scheme.

¶35

Keeping this in mind, asked the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.George Mathew, whether his clients would be interested in the same arrangement and he submitted that though the primary prayer in this writ petition is that the EPFO be directed to pay to the petitioners, they are, in fact, only interested in getting pension either from the EPFO or the Pension Board in terms of law. He says that his clients have sought for the prayers in this writ petition in the present manner, because the issues relating to pension are still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an SLP. He, however, adds that since his clients do not insist that they should get their pension from one source or the other, they would have no objection in the same arrangement, as has been done by this Court in W.P. (C)No.32787/2018, being made applicable to this case also.

¶36

After saying as above, Sri.George Mathew, then submits that, the other issue in this writ petition, namely, that their service after they joined the 1971 Scheme being reckoned under the 1995 Scheme, must be considered by this Court, so that when the pension is calculated by the

¶37

WP(C).No.14662 of 2019

¶38

¶39

Board or the EPFO, there will be no further confusion. However, I am afraid that this is not a submission that I can accede to immediately because, it would be impossible for this Court to assess this issue affirmatively, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, because it requires a lot of factual factors to be evaluated. However, I notice that the petitioners' case is founded on the terms of the 1995 Scheme itself, which according to them, allows quantification of the pensionable period by taking into account their earlier period in the 1971 Scheme. I am consequently of the view that these issues must gain the attention of the competent Authority of the Pension Board itself.

¶40

When I made mind clear as afore at the Bar, Sri.M.Sasindran, learned standing counsel for the Pension Board, submits that both these issues will be considered by the competent Authority of the Board after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and to the authorized representative of the Society; but prays that this Court make no affirmative declarations on the same, leaving it to the said Authority to take an apposite decision in terms

¶41

WP(C).No.14662 of 2019

¶42

¶43

of law and the provisions of the Scheme.

¶44

In view of the afore and taking note of the above limited consent among the parties, I direct the competent Authority of the Pension Board, which is stated to be its Secretary, to take a decision as to whether they intend to transfer the Pension Corpus relating to the petitioners to the EPFO or whether they will pay pension to them directly under the Scheme. In the latter case, the Secretary will also take a decision as to the reckoning of service of the petitioners after they joined the 1971 Scheme, in terms of the applicable provisions of the 1995 Scheme.

¶45

Resultantly, I order this writ petition directing the Secretary of the Pension Board to complete the afore exercise, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and to facilitate this, I direct respondents 7 and 8 to forward the pension dockets of the petitioners to the Board, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment, as has been ordered in the judgment in W.P. (C)No.32787/2018. However, after the exercise directed therein, if for any reason, the Board takes a decision to

¶46

WP(C).No.14662 of 2019

¶47

¶48

transfer the corpus to the EPFO, then the pension dockets will be returned to the Bank immediately thereafter. I further order that the Secretary of the Pension Board will take a decision in this case, taking note of the actual ground realities involved, including the fact that the petitioners have been waiting for their pension for the last several years; and that on account of their abject financial plight, they may not be able to continue with their life unless eligible pension is offered to them at the earliest point of time and in any event within the time frames fixed therein.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

¶53

WP(C).No.14662 of 2019

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD 31-01-2012 IN W.P(C) NO. 15482 OF 2010
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT OF DTD. 27-06-2012 IN W.A NO. 1218 OF 2012 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD 21-12-2017 IN W.P(C) NO. 647 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF REMITTANCE TILL 06/2009 IN ACCOUNT NO. KR/3172/140 OF 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF EXTRACT OF REMITTANCE TILL 06/2009 IN ACCOUNT NO. KR/3172/180 OF 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF ACCOUNTS EXTRACT OF 1ST PETITIONER WITH PF TRUST.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF ACCOUNTS EXTRACT OF 2ND PETITIONER WITH PF TRUST.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF CALCULATION SHEET WITH DETAILS OF AMOUNTS DUE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER AS ON 30-04-2019.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION SHEET WITH DETAILS OF AMOUNTS DUE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER AS ON 30-4-2019.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R9(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.04.2012, ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R9(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.05.2018 ISSUED TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R9(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, EPFO, TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.

K.T.Mathew, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Mathew, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Lukose Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Jabbar K.P. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

P.K.Unni Vs State of Kerala

V.M.Johny Vs State of Kerala

The Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural Vs State of Kerala

K.Sivankutty Vs the State of Kerala