Allowed

K.Vijayambika v. the Kerala Co-Operative Employees Pension Board

Kerala HC10 Nov 2022WP(C)/4130/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Alleppey District Co-operative Printing Society to remit employer's EPF contribution and interest to the Kerala Co-operative Employees Pension Board from the resolution date (1.1.1985 or 1.1.1991) and commence pension payment. It also empowered the petitioner to make payment if the Society fails to comply.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd Respondent Society is directed to remit employer's share of contribution and eligible interest to 1st Respondent within one month. Petitioner empowered to make payment if 3rd Respondent fails

K.Vijayambika Vs the Kerala Co-Operative… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4130 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.VIJAYAMBIKA
SREEKRISHNA VILASAM, AVALOOKUNNU P.O,
SOUTH ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA 6.
BY ADVS.
SAYUJYA
K.R.RAJEEV KRISHNAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶10

2THE DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
ALAPPUZHA, HEAD OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.
3THE ALLEPPEY DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE PRINTING SOCIETY
A 191, ALAPPUZHA 1,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE
EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
SMT.B.ANANJANA
SRI.K.A.BALAN
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.V.VARGHESE
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN-SC

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 4130 OF 2018 2

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The petitioner says that she worked as the Secretary of the 3^rd respondent – 'Alleppey District Co-operative Printing Society' ('Society', for short) from 03.07.1984 to 07.12.2005; and then joined the 2^nd respondent – “District Co-operative Bank”, Alappuzha (“DCB”, for short), from which she superannuated in the year 2012.

¶15

The petitioner alleges that, even though the “Society” had adopted Ext.P1 resolution to pay their contribution under the then prevalent Employees Provident Fund Scheme (EPF Scheme), no action had been taken by them; and thus that she has been left without the benefit of pension even today. She says that she had, therefore, approached this Court earlier through W.P(C)No.3887 of 2016, which ended in a judgment dated 17.1.2017, wherein, the 3^rd respondent was directed to remit their contribution to the Pension Corpus maintained by the 1^st respondent – Pension Board; but that no action was taken by them thereafter. She says that she has, therefore, been constrained to approach this Court through this writ petition.

¶16

The afore submissions of the petitioner, as made by her learned counsel – Smt.Sayujya, were answered by Sri.Peter Jose Christo – learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent – Society, pointing out that the employees of his client were enrolled with the ‘EPF Scheme’ only on

¶17

WP(C) NO. 4130 OF 2018 3

¶18

01.01.1991 and therefore, that petitioner cannot claim pension prior to that date. He added that, in any event, Ext.P1 Resolution – which recorded that the Society will remit the contribution to the ‘EPF Scheme’ from 1985 - was withdrawn by them through Ext.P5 – subsequent one, because the former was taken in haste and without proper thought. He thus argued that this writ petition is not maintainable.

¶19

Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent – District Co-operative Bank, submitted that no reliefs have been sought against his client by the petitioner; and therefore, prayed that this Court issue no orders against them.

¶20

Sri.M.Sasindran – learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent – Pension Board, submitted that, normally, the petitioner will be entitled to pension only from the date on which she was enrolled with the ‘EPF Scheme’ namely 01.01.1991. He pointed out that, therefore, her claim to be granted pension, reckoning that she had been enrolled in the year 1985, is untenable and cannot obtain favour in law.

¶21

When I consider the afore submissions of the respondents, from the touchstone of the earlier judgment obtained by the petitioner, namely Ext.R3(a), it is clear that they cannot find my support. This is because, a learned Judge of this Court, after noticing that Ext.P1 -

¶22

WP(C) NO. 4130 OF 2018 4

¶23

Resolution had been taken by the 3^rd respondent – Society as early as in the year 2005, to remit the Employer’s contribution to the Pension Scheme, held that they could not have refused to do so thereafter. Pertinently, nothing had been brought to the notice of the learned Judge by the 3^rd respondent – Society, that Ext.P1 - Resolution had been withdrawn by them subsequently through Ext.P5 dated 14.03.2016; and hence directions were issued, ordering them to pay the contribution as per it, to the 1^st respondent - Pension Board, together with interest upto date.

¶24

It is relevant that the Pension Board was also in the party array in the afore said judgment as respondent No.5 and that both of them including the 3^rd respondent accepted it.

¶25

One, therefore, fails to understand how the 3^rd respondent can now say that they are not bound to pay contribution, or that they have withdrawn Ext.P1 Resolution of theirs through the subsequent Ext.P5; as much as how, the Pension Board can maintain that they will not pay pension to the petitioner based on the contribution to be made from the year 1985. These issues have been fully settled and covered by Ext.R3(a) judgment, which remains final and accepted, as on this date.

¶26

That being said, the question whether the 2^nd respondent – District Co-operative Bank is obligated to pay any amount, including

¶27

WP(C) NO. 4130 OF 2018 5

¶28

towards interest to the Pension Board, is not something that this Court can decide at this stage because such have to be first considered by the said Board itself, under the ambit of Clause 38 of the relevant Pension Scheme.

¶29

The afore being so declared, Sri.Peter Jose Christo – learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent – Society, submitted that even if this Court directs his client to make contribution, they will not be in a position to do so because they have no resources at all - the Society having become totally unprofitable and surviving on a skeleton staff of just one.

¶30

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition with the following directions:

¶31

(a) The 3^rd respondent – Society is directed to act as per Ext.R3(a) judgment and remit the employer’s share of the contribution, along with eligible interest to the 1^st respondent – Pension Board, from the date mentioned in Ext.P1, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

(b) Should the 3^rd respondent – Society fails or refuses to act as afore, the petitioner will be at liberty to make the said payment to the Pension Board within a period of one month thereafter; however, with full liberty being reserved to her to recover the said amount from the

¶33

WP(C) NO. 4130 OF 2018 6

¶34

Society as per law, or as and when any steps are taken for its liquidation in future, whichever is earlier.

¶35

(c) On the contribution reaching the Pension Board, they will immediately compute the eligible pension to the petitioner in terms of Ext.R3(a) judgment and commence payment of the same to her within a period of one month thereafter. They will also be required to initiate necessary action under Clause 38 of the Pension Scheme, both against the 2^nd respondent or the 3^rd respondent, as the case may be, if it is found so necessary, after hearing all sides; thus culminating in appropriate proceedings thereunder.

¶36

I, however, make it clear that even if there should be any controversy with respect to the quantum of contribution, eligible proportionate pension shall be paid to the petitioner within the afore time frame and the balance disbursed, after the afore exercise is completed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶39

MC/11.11

¶40

WP(C) NO. 4130 OF 2018 7

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4130/2018

¶42

`PETITION`	`ER EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1.`	`COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.11 DATED 18.2.05` `AND ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1[A].`	`COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 30.11.15` `SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF` `CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES [GENERAL]` `ALAPPUZHA.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2.`	`COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER DATED 13.12.17.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2[A].`	`COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER DATED 13.12.17.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3.`	`COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.` `BP/P1/257/ALP DCB DATED 16.12.17.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4.`	`COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE MONTHLY` `REMITTANCE OF TEH 2ND RESPONDENT TOWARDS` `THE PETITIONERS PENSION FUND.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE` `MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE` `3RD RESPONDENT HELD ON 14.03.2016 WITH` `TYPED COPY.`
`RESPONDE`	`NT EXHIBIT`
`EXHIBIT`	`R3(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE` `COURT IN W.P(C)NO.3887/2017-I`
`EXHIBIT`	`R3(B)`	`TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE` `MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DIRECTOR` `BOARD HELD ON 14.3.2016.`

K.Vijayambika v. the Kerala Co-Operative Employees Pension Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vijayambika v. the Kerala Co-Operative Employees Pension Board

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

A. Shajahan Vs Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 995

Reshmi R Vs the Kulasekharapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.955

The Chairman Vs Bindu Mohan N.

Manjukumari L. Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Vimitha Vijayan, Vs State of Kerala

Kr'S Sree Narayana College Vs Preetha Kumar T