Disposed

Mohanan K. S. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC5 Jan 2021WP(C)/61/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued a direction to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1st Respondent) to dispose of the Petitioner's representations regarding the calculation of his pension salary and to decide the issue after affording an opportunity of being heard, within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to consider representations Exts.P6 and P7, afford an opportunity of being heard, and decide within two months.

Mohanan K. S. Vs Regional Provident Fund… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.61 OF 2021(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHANAN K. S. AGED 64 YEARS S/O. SADASIVAN P. N., ANASTHANATHU KOTTINATU, MEMANA, OCHIRA P. O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 526. (PF NO.KR/KCH/4544/00011), (PPO NO. KR/KLM/00102859)

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRAKASH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EPF ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, COCHIN - 682 017.

¶11

2 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EPF ORGANISTION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, PARAMESWAR NAGAR, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

3 MANAGER

¶13

CENTRAL PRODUCTS DIARY, KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., PUNNAPRA P. O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 004.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S. SUDHEER SRI. S.PRASANTH SMT. LATHA ANAND - SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.61 OF 2021(G)

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner says that he was working with the 3 rd respondent - Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., and that he retired, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.10.2014. He says that he had subscribed to the Employees Provident Fund and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, constituted under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and that he has been drawing his pension on the actual salary computed on the basis of the average pay drawn by him during the period of sixty months prior to his age of superannuation.

¶21

2 . The petitioner, however, alleges that the 1 st respondent has not adopted the correct figure of his salary for determining the pension and that Exts.P3 and P4 would substantiate this.

¶22

3 . The petitioner, through his learned counsel - Sri.M.P.Prakash therefore, says that the he has preferred Exts.P6 and P7 representations before the 1 st respondent to correct the

¶23

WP(C).No.61 OF 2021(G)

¶24

¶25

afore mistake; but alleges that no action has been taken by the said Authority until now. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that Exts.P6 and P7 be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.

¶26

4 . In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the provident Fund Commissioner, Sri.Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, submits that there does not appear to be any legal impediment in Exts.P6 and P7 being disposed of; but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declaration as to the entitlement of the petitioners to any relief and leave it to the competent Authority to take a decision on it in terms of law.

¶27

5 . Smt.Latha Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd respondent, submitted that her client does not have a role to play in the controversy in question at this time and thus prayed that no further orders be issued against them.

¶28

Taking note of the afore submissions and since the petitioner only seeks that Exts.P6 and P7 representations be directed to be disposed of, I order this writ petition and direct the 1st respondent to take up the said representations and decide on the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the

¶29

WP(C).No.61 OF 2021(G)

¶30

¶31

petitioner - either physically or through videoconferencing - culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶33

SD/-

¶34

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C).No.61 OF 2021(G)

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.10.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED 11.09.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.11.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY LETTER DATED 10.10.2017 OF THE PIO UNDER THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY LETTER DATED 06.11.2017 OF THE PIO UNDER THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.02.2018 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 10.10.2018 OF THE PETITIONER.

Mohanan K. S. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan K. S. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivan.P.v Vs the Canara Bank

Changanacherry Co-Operative Rubber Marketing Society LTD.NO.K/364 Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Suresh Kumar K.R. Vs the Authorized Officer

Shine Plast Vs Assistant State Tax Officer

Mohammed Musthafa Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Sabu A.A. Vs the Authorized Officer