Dismissed

Kerala State Co-Operative Employees' Pension Board v. Thomas P. Mathew

Kerala HC14 Oct 2022RP/876/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by the Pension Board against an order directing it to disburse full superannuation pension to a former employee. The Board argued the former employer society was defunct, preventing recovery of unpaid contributions. The Court held the judgment correct as responsibility for payment lies with the Board, which may subsequently seek recovery.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kerala State Co-Operative Employees' Pension… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 22ND ASWINA, 1944

¶5

RP NO. 876 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT INWP(C) 30770/2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶8

KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES' PENSION BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POST BOX NO. 85, TC.NO. 27/156-57, CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLAGE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695 001.

¶9

BY ADV M.SASINDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THOMAS P. MATHEW S/O. MATHEW, RESIDING AT KANNAMKARA PUTHENPURAYIL, NELLIKKAMAN.P.O., RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 686 510.

¶12

2 THE DEVIKULAM PATTIKAVARGA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, COLONY ROAD, EDAMALAKKUDY, MUNNAR.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 612. 3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADV JAWAHAR JOSE

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI. APPU P.S - GP

¶15

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

14.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.P.No.876 of 2022

-2-

ORDER

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2022

¶21

The review petitioner is the Kerala State Cooperative Employees Pension Board, arrayed as the first respondent in the writ petition. The writ petitioner, a former employee of the second respondent Co-operative Society had challenged the decision of the Pension Board to disburse only proportionate pension to him and had also sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Pension Board to disburse full superannuation pension from 01.04.2007 onwards with interest at the rate of 12% per annuam. There was a further prayer to quash Ext.P9

¶22

pension payment order to the extent it limited the pension payable to the petitioner,

¶23

proportionate to the amount deposited by the second respondent Society. By the judgment under

¶24

R.P.No.876 of 2022

¶25

-3-

¶26

review, this Court allowed the writ petition and directed the first respondent Board to quantify and disburse the eligible amount of superannuation pension and arrears with effect 01.04.2007, till payment of full amount of

¶27

eligible monthly pension. The Pension Board was directed to effect payment within three months of receipt of copy of the judgment, failing which the Board would be held liable to pay the amount with interest at 12% per annuam with effect from 01.04.2007. The petitioner's claim for interest

¶28

on the delayed payment of pension was rejected, considering that the pension scheme is a selffinancing scheme and dispute between the pension Board and the second respondent society with regard to the quantum of pension had not been resolved.

¶29

In support of the application for review, Adv.M.Sasindran appearing for the Pension Board submitted that the Pension Board was directed to

¶30

R.P.No.876 of 2022

¶31

-4-

¶32

pay pension and arrears of pension on the premise

¶33

that, in the case of an employee whose pension contribution was not remitted in full by the employer society, that amount can be realised by the Pension Board from the society with interest at the rate of 24%. It is contended that it is impossible for the Pension Board to realise the amount from the second respondent Society since the Society has become defunct. To buttress the contention, reference is made to Annexure A3 communication of the Joint Registrar (General), Idukki wherein it is categorically stated that the second respondent society does not have sufficient balance in its account.

¶34

The next contention is based on the

¶35

proviso paragraph 19 of the Pension Scheme, which is to the effect that the qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension shall be limited to the period for which the employers contribution towards the provident fund has been

¶36

R.P.No.876 of 2022

¶37

-5-

¶38

fully paid by the society in respect of the employee. It is contended that in the instant case, the second respondent society having paid only a minuscule part of the provident fund contribution, the writ petitioner's qualifying service ought to be limited to that extent. The judgment having been rendered without considering this crucial aspect is liable to be reviewed.

¶39

Adv.Jawahar Jose, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner contended that, in terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed, the secretary of the Pension Board had passed an order dated 07.08.2020, as per which Rs.9,55,582/- was paid towards arrears of pension for the period 1.4.2007 to 08.02.2020. As the said order was not in tune with the statutory provision, as regards the determination of the monthly pension, the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Government under paragraph 28A of the Cooperative Employees Pension Scheme, 1994. The

¶40

R.P.No.876 of 2022

¶41

-6-

¶42

Government having confirmed the order passed by

¶43

the Pension Board, the writ petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.26376 of 2022 before this Court and the said matter is pending consideration. The review petition was filed thereafter as an afterthought and with a delay of 1026 days.

¶44

The judgment sought to be reviewed was

¶45

rendered by this court after taking into account the relevant provisions of the pension scheme. It has been specifically held in the judgment that responsibility is on the Pension Board to

¶46

pay eligible pension to the superannuated employee from the first day of the next month of his retirement. This Court has also held that

¶47

the pension scheme empowers the Board to realise the payments thus made from the defaulter society with 24% interest. In my considered opinion, the

¶48

fact that the Society has become defunct and it may not be possible for the Board to realise the arrears from the society does not render the

R.P.No.876 of 2022

-7-

judgment erroneous.

Further, the Pension Board having passed a consequential order in terms of the judgment and having disbursed the arrears of pension to the writ petitioner, it cannot, at this point of time, seek review of the judgment.

¶53

Yet another important aspect is that the direction in the judgment is only to pay eligible pension to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the contention based on the proviso to paragraph

¶54

19(1) of the Pension Scheme is also of no

¶55

relevance. Moreover, as rightly contended by Adv.Jawahar Jose, such a contention was never raised in the writ petition.

¶56

For the aforementioned reasons, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

R.P.No.876 of 2022

-8-

APPENDIX OF RP 876/2022

¶63

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO.P2.2108/10 DATED 15.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE PENSION BOARD. Annexure AII TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION MADE BY THE PENSION BOARD FOR REVENUE RECOVERY DATED 22.09.2020. Annexure AIII TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.JRGIDK/782/2022-SCTM DATED 12.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, IDUKKI.

Kerala State Co-Operative Employees' Pension Board v. Thomas P. Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kerala State Co-Operative Employees' Pension Board v. Thomas P. Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.A. Xavier Vs Nishant Kavungaparambil

The Executive Engineer,Lsgd Division ,Kakkanad Ernakulam Vs C v Radhakrishnan, S/O Viswanatha Pai Thuruthelveli,Maruthorvattom P O ,Cherthala

Hassan N.S Vs Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady

Sijo Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Thomson Thomas Vs District Collector

Annamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala