Allowed

M.O. Jose v. Union of India

Kerala HC7 Dec 2022WP(C)/12665/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, retired employees of Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd., sought relief for entitlement to revised pension under the amended Employees Pension Scheme. The Court held they are entitled to revised pension as per the Supreme Court judgment, requiring the employer to allow option for six months before final decision.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted to Petitioners. Fourth Respondent directed to give time for option and accept same, taking call within six months.

M.O. Jose Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 12665 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 M.O. JOSE, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. OUSEPH, ELECTRICAL LINEMAN (RTD), PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., MULAVARICKAL (H), THURAVOOR P.O. ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM 683 572.

¶7

2M.K. KUMAR,
ASSISTANT FACTORY MECHANICAL (RTD),
PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,KARTHIKA (H) T.C.
56/1068 KARUMAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 002.

¶8

3A.K. SUKUMARAN,
WATCHER (RTD),
PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., AMBAZAKKADAM
HOUSE, MOTHIRAKANNI P.O. CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR 680 724.

¶9

4 C.V. CHERIYAN, TAPPING SUPERVISOR (RTD), PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., CHULLI HOUSE, AYAMPUZHA P.O. KALADI, ERNAKULAM 683 581.

¶10

5A.V. VARKEY,
PUMB OPERATOR (RTD), PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA
LTD., ARICKAL (H) NADUVATTOM, MANAPPARA, KALADI,
ERNAKULAM.

¶11

6 VARGHESE CHERIYAN, ELECTRICIAN (RTD), PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KARUVELIL HOUSE NIRANAM P.O. THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA 689 621.

¶12

7 REJI. P.N., PUMB OPERATOR (RTD), PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., PAROOR, KANNANNUMON, KONNAMKARA P.O. PERUNAD, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 711.

¶13

8 K.M. JOHNY, TAPPING SUPERVISOR (RTD), PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., PAREKILUKKAM HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O. KALADI, ERNAKULAM, 683 581.

¶14

WP(C) NO. 12665 OF 2020 - 2 -

¶15

9NADESSAN,
ASSISTANT FACTORY MECHANICAL (RTD),
PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., RESIDING
AT PRABHA BHAVAN, KUNNARANVILAKAM, KULATHOOR
P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 583.

¶16

10K.S. RAPHEL,
TAPPING SUPERVISOR (RTD),
PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,
KIDANGAN, AYYAMPUZHA P.O. UPPUKAL, ANGAMALY,
ERNAKULAM 683 581.

¶17

11M.V. FRANCIS,
TAPPING SUPERVISOR (RTD),
PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.,(PCK),
RESIDING AT MANJOORAN HOUSE, KOORKKAMATTAM,
KUTTIKAD P.O. CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR 680 721.

¶18

12 RAGHAVAN, PEON,

¶19

PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., (PCK),
RESIDING AT PALLIYAN HOUSE, THURAVOOR P.O.
SIVAJIPURAM, WARD 5, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683
572.

¶20

BY ADVS.
SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS
SMT.KAMALAKSHY KYLASANATH
SRI.R.MAHESH MENON

¶21

RESPONDENTS:

¶22

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶23

2 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B. NO. 1016, PATTOM,

¶24

WP(C) NO. 12665 OF 2020 - 3 -

¶25

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶26

3 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B. NO. 1016, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶27

4 PLATATION CORPORATE OF KERALA LTD (PCK), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR, KANJIKUZHI, MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 002.

¶28

*ADDL.R5 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, EPF, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE (SRO), ADITYA SABARI TOWER, POST OFFICE ROAD, THIRUNAKKARA,KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686 001. (*ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05-082020 IN IA 1/20 IN WP(C) 12665/2020)

¶29

BY ADVS.
P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
SRI.S.PRASANTH, SC, EPFO
SRI.N.RAJESH
SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

WP(C) NO. 12665 OF 2020 - 4 -

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Petitioners Nos.1 to 11 are the retired employees of Plantation Corporation of Kerala - 4^th respondent, a Public Sector Company. They are covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The Petitioners’ salary was above Rs.9,000/-. At the time of the promulgation of the Scheme, for the purpose of payment of pension, the maximum pensionable salary was limited to Rs.6,500/per month and on that, contribution was liable to be paid. The aforementioned scheme was amended with effect from September, 2014 by adding a proviso to clause 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme with effect from 16.03.1996.

¶34

The case of the petitioners is that since they retired after 01.09.2014, the matter is now covered by

¶35

WP(C) NO. 12665 OF 2020 - 5 -

¶36

the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 4.11.2022 in SLP No.8658-8659/2019 The Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Another v. Sunilkumar B and another whereby the challenge to the amendment assailed in this Court have been upheld. As per the judgment aforementioned, employees who retired after 01.09.2014 would be also entitled to the benefit of the revised pension, provided the employer is required to ask for the option and for submission of the option a period of six months have been provided.

¶37

Learned counsel for the respondents did not deny the fact.

¶38

Since the petitioners retired after 01.09.2014, are entitled to the benefit of revised pension with effect from the due dates as and when option is given. 4^th respondent shall give time for the option as per the judgment of the Supreme Court and o n receipt of the option from the petitioners, will accept the same and

¶39

WP(C) NO. 12665 OF 2020 - 6 -

¶40

thereafter take the call within the period six months as prescribed in the judgment of Supreme Court.

¶41

writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

 Sd/-

¶43

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

¶44

vv

¶45

WP(C) NO. 12665 OF 2020 - 7 -

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12665/2020

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

`EXHIBIT P1`		`A TRUE COPY OF THE DIVISION BENCH` `JUDGMENT DATED 5.3.2013 IN W.A. NO.` `1137 OF 2012.`
`EXHIBIT P2`		`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`(B)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`(C)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`(D)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`(E)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`(F)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`(G)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`(H)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 9TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`(I)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 10TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`(J)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 11TH PETITIONER.`

¶49

WP(C) NO. 12665 OF 2020 - 8 -

¶50

`EXHIBIT`	`P2 (K)` `A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION` `SUBMITTED BY THE 12TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3` `A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED` `30.10.2014 IN WPC NO. 26194 OF 2014.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3 (A)` `A TRUE COPY OF THE LODGMENT DATED` `5.6.2014 IN WPC NO. 8298 OF 2014` `EXTENDING THE BENEFIT TO RETIRED` `EMPLOYEES.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4` `A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT` `DATED 25.02.2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE` `HIGH COURT OF KERALA, AT ERNAKULAM IN` `WPC NO. 3846 OF 2019 AND CONNECTED` `CASES.`

¶51

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶52

EXHIBIT R5(A)TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 06-02-2020 OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT IN
CONMT.PET.(C) NO.1917-1918/2018 AND
CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT R5(B)TRUE COPY OF THE A MODEL CALCULATION
SHEET OF ENHANCED PENSION
EXHIBIT R5(C)TRUE COPY OF THE ACTUARIAL REPORT
DATED 27-12-2018 ON UN-EXEMPTED
ESTABLISHMENTS
EXHIBIT R5(D)TRUE COPY OF THE ACTUARIAL REPORT
DATED 27-12-2018 ON EXEMPTED
ESTABLISHMENTS
EXHIBIT R5(E)TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
DATED 20-06-2019

M.O. Jose v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.O. Jose v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

George Dominic Vs the Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala State Umbrella Manufacturers Association, Vs Union of India

Bank of Baroda Vs the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court

Sindu George Vs State of Kerala

Haneefa Vs Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector

T.R.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala