Allowed

Ancy Mathew v. the Employees Provident Fund Organization

Kerala HC18 May 2022WP(C)/14495/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala held that a mother is the natural guardian of minor children under Christian Law without needing a court certificate. The court quashed a letter rejecting the petitioner's claim and directed the EPFO to process pension, EPF, and EDLI benefits for the benefit of the minors.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of rejection letter; directed to sanction pension and release EPF/EDLI benefits to petitioner as natural guardian.

Ancy Mathew Vs the Employees Provident Fund… — 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 18^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 28TH VAISAKHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 14495 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ANCY MATHEW AGED 45 YEARS W/O.LATE SIBY ABRAHAM, CHOONATTU HOUSE, MUNDAKKAYAM EAST P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 686 513.

¶8

BY ADV SIJO PATHAPARAMBIL JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II, ADITYA SHABARI TOWER, POST OFFICE ROAD, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶11

2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR RASHTRA DEEPIKA LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE, P.B.NO.7, COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001, KERALA INDIA.

¶12

BY ADV JOY THATTIL ITTOOP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 14495 OF 2022

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Petitioner is the widow of Sri.Siby Abraham, who died in harness while working with the 2^nd respondent, Rashtra Deepika Limited, College Road, Kottayam on 20.5.2021 as evident from the death certificate Ext.P1. Out of the wedlock there are three children, who are presently minors namely Miss Amal Maria Siby, Miss Anna Maria Siby and Master Abin Siby. All of them are under the guardianship of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner was a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 52 promulgated by the 1^st respondent. An application

¶17

was preferred before the 1^st respondent claiming the following benefits:

¶18

a. Provident Fund benefits b. Pensionary Benefits

¶19

c. Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Benefits

¶20

Vide Ext.P2 dated 16.9.2021, the first respondent did not entertain the application of the petitioner on the reason that

¶21

as per the Christian law mother is not the natural guardian of the minor children and for that, an application is required to be

¶22

WP(C) NO. 14495 OF 2022

¶23

submitted to the competent court having jurisdiction for obtaining guardianship certificate. Even the form 10 was also lacking material particulars with regard to the fact whether deceased had died while in service or otherwise. As regards the claim of EDLI, it was submitted that it will be processed only after getting the certification from the competent court.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the controversy in this case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Jince Mary Johns v. K.P.Johny and another [2011 (4) KHC 343] relied by the single bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31851 of 201 decided on 30.10.2014. In the aforementioned judgment it was held that the petitioner is the mother and the only parent surviving of the minor children and as per the authoritative pronouncement in Jince Mary Johns (supra) would show that biological parents have always been recognized as natural guardians as no other persons would be interested more in the welfare of the minors.

¶25

Learned counsel for the respondent in support of the stand taken in the counter raised the objection by relying upon

¶26

WP(C) NO. 14495 OF 2022

¶27

the provisions of Para 10.8.1(c) of Employees Provident Fund Organization Manual Accounting Procedure (MAP) – Part II-A where the claim with regard to the property of the minors, either the father or the mother is required to move an application to be appointed as a guardian of the minors. Judgment relied upon by the petitioner would not have a binding effect as it did not deal with the aforementioned provisions. As far as the pension of the widow and children are concerned, as revealed from the contents of para 8 of the counter, have already been sanctioned by the Pension Payment Order PPO No.KR/KTM/49223 issued by the first respondent, Ext.R1(b). As regards the Provident Fund and EDLI (Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Benefits) of the three children, the same would be released only on submission of the guardianship certificate.

¶28

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Concededly, the husband of the petitioner Sri.Siby Abraham while in service had unfortunately expired on 20.5.2021 and was registered with the Employees Provident Fund owing to the contribution paid by him as well as

¶29

WP(C) NO. 14495 OF 2022

¶30

the employer/respondent No.2. Submission of the application for release of the benefits referred above is not in dispute. In order to deal with the stand of the respondent referring to the paragraph, it would be expedient to extract relevant portion of the manual accounting procedure.

¶31

10.8.1 (c) : Under the Christian Law, the father and mother are the natural guardian of the person of the minor. They cannot by way of claim to the properties of the minor as natural guardians. They have to be appointed guardians by Court. If they come in possession of any property of the minor, they hold the same in trust for the minor subject of course, to the right of incurring certain expenses on behalf of the minor.”

¶32

On perusal of the same, it is evident that for any claim with regard to the property of the minor, either surviving father or the mother are required to obtain a guardianship certificate from the competent authority having jurisdiction. But the aforementioned provisions do not express any mandate and therefore cannot be considered as sine qua non. This Court while dealing with similar contention had in Jince Mary Johns (supra) already rejected the plea of the EPFO which has been relied by the Single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.31851 of 2013, Ext.P5. Relevant portion of the same reads thus:

¶33

The petitioner herein is the mother and the only parent

¶34

WP(C) NO. 14495 OF 2022

¶35

surviving, of the minor children. The authoritative pronouncement in Jince Mary Johns (supra) would show that biological parents have always been recognized as natural guardians. None other can be interested more in the welfare of the minors and the family pension under the Scheme is intended at sustenance of the bereaved family, who is deprived of their only source of livelihood. In the above circumstance, following the afore-cited precedent, it is directed that the pension application shall be processed even without the Guardianship Certificate. The same shall be done within a period of one month from today and the entire arrears disbursed within one month thereafter, along with regular pension.

¶36

In this view of the matter, Ext.P2 dated 16.9.2021 is hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to sanction and disburse the pension as referred to in paragraph 8 of the counter and also process the claim with regard to the EPF and EDLI and release the same in favour of the petitioner being the natural guardian of the children. It is expected that the petitioner shall utilize the money so released for the welfare and the benefit of minor children as well as her own sustainability. Let this exercise be undertaken by the first respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

Sd/-

sab

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 14495 OF 2022

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14495/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SIBY ABRAHAM DATED 20/5/2021 ISSUED BY THE ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/03/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE UPDATED COMPOSITE CLAIM FORM IN DEATH CASES DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT CLAIMING PROVIDENT FUND BENEFITS, PENSIONARY BENEFITS AND EMPLOYEES DEPOSIT LINKED INSURANCE BENEFITS.
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/10/2014 IN WPC NO.31851/2013 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶45

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶46

Exhibit R1(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PARA 10.8.1 OF THE EPFO MANUAL ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE (MAP)- PART- II -A. Exhibit R1(B) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER PPO NO.KR/KTM/49223 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Ancy Mathew v. the Employees Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ancy Mathew v. the Employees Provident Fund Organization

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

Bamboo Corporation Ltd. Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employee Fund Organisation

Theresa Jose Vs Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Standard Tile & Clay Works (P) Ltd. Vs Sri.Raghavan.K.

Nikhil Babu Vs Regional Passport Officer

Ire Civil Contract Workers Welfare Forum Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

M/S. Vodafone Idea Limited(Formerly Known as Idea Cellular Ltd.), Vs the District Executive Officer