This contempt case was closed without granting relief. The court held that due to the Apex Court judgment in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B., the petitioners' entitlement for higher pension requires reconsideration by the respondent, E.P.F.O., at law.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023/12TH ASWINA, 1945
CON.CASE(C) NO. 2713 OF 2019
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2018 IN
WP(C)NO.30009 OF 2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONERS:
1 LUYIS C., AGED 61, S/O.CHACKO, PALODAM HOUSE, KAVALAM NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, (RETIRED SECURITY GUARD, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, KOTTAYAM) EPF A/C NO.KR/KTM/2628/1008 PPO NO.KR/KTM/36667 (PETITIONER NO.12 IN WPC NO.30009/2016)2 VARGHESE C.A., AGED 61, S/O.ANTONY, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, VETTILAPARA P.O., CHALAKKUKDY VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, (RETIRED WATCHER, ADIRAPPILLY ESTATE OFFICE, KALADY PLANTATION, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, EPF A/C NO.KR/KTM/2628/1033 PPO NO.KR/KCH/93860 (PETITIONER NO.17 IN WPC NO.30009/2016)3 VENU V.R., AGED 61, S/O.RAGHAVAN, VALIYARPADATH HOUSE, VETTILAPARA P.O., CHALAKKUDY VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT (RETIRED DRIVER, KALLALA ESTATE, KALADY PLANTATION, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, EPF A/C NO.KR/KTM/2628/1235 (PETITIONER NO.18 IN WPC NO.30009/2016)4 JACOB P.P. AGED 61, S/O.PORINCHU, PUTHUVA
HOUSE, KUNNUKARA P.O., CHENGAMANAD VIA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, (RETIRED ELECTRIC LINEMAN,
TSR FACTORY, KALADY PLANTATION, PLANTATION
CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED) EPF AC/C
NO.KR/KTM/2628/993 (PETITIONER NO.22 IN WPC
NO.30009/2016)
2
Cont.Case (C)No.2713 of 2019
5 RAVEENDRAN V.T., AGED 61, S/O.THANKAPPAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, KALAPPURA WARD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT (RETIRED ASSISTANT FACTORY MECHANIC, KALLALA FACTORY, KALADY PLANTATION, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD. EPF A/C.NO.KR/KTM/2628/1245 (PETITIONER NO.28 IN WPC NO.30009/2016)6 AHAMEDKUTTY U.P, AGED 61, S/O.RAYIN, VALAPRA HOUSE, PALLIKUTH P.O., CHUNGATHARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT (RETIRED TAPPING SUPERVISOUR, NILAMBUR ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD.)EPF A/C.NO.KR/KTM/2628/1332 PPO NOKR/KKD/55455 (PETITIONER NO.69 IN WPC NO.30009/2016)7 JAMUNA N NAIR, AGED 63, W/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, KARTHIKA HOUSE, AZAD LANE, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686 001 (RETIRED PERSONNEL OFFICER, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM) EPF A/C.NO.KR/KTM/2628/1071 PPO NO.KR/KTM/32719 (PETITIONER NO.101 IN WPC NO.30009/2016)8 USHA M.H., AGED 62, W/O.C.K.CHACKO, KALLUPALATHUNKAL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM EPF A/C.NO.KR/KTM/2628/996 PPO NO.KR/KTM/35671(PETITIONER NO.104 IN WPC NO.30009/2016)9 ANIAMMA MATHAI, AGED 61, W/O.JOHN, KADAVILPARAMBIL HOUSE, GIRINAGAR P.O., MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM – 686 008 (RETIRED PHARMACIST, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM) EPF A/C.NO.KR/KTM/2628/1227 (PETITIONER NO.147 IN WPC NO.30009/2016)10 RAJESWARI AMMA M.R., AGED 62, W/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, MAMPUZHACKAL HOUSE, MANGAPRA P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT (RETIRED TECHNICAL OFFICER, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., KOTTAYAM) EPF A/C.NO.KR/KTM/2628/956 PPO NO.KR/KCH/92581 (PETITIONER NO.149 IN WPC NO.30009/2016)BY ADV K.SASIKUMAR
3
Cont.Case (C)No.2713 of 2019
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.4:
SANDEEP BISWAS (AGE AND FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONERS) ASSISTANT PF COMMISSIONER,
SUB REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, ADITHYA
TOWERS, POST OFFICE ROAD, THIRUNAKKARA,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-688 601
BY ADV SMT.NITA.N.S.
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
Cont.Case (C)No.2713 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners, who are some of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.30009 of 2016, have filed this Contempt Case, invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure I judgment dated 12.10.2018 in that writ petition along with W.P.(C)No.13120 of 2015 and connected matters.
Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. [2022 (7) KHC 12 : AIR 2022 SC 5634] . In that judgment, the Apex Court held that the provisions contained in Notification No.GSR 609(E) dated 22.08.2014 is legal and valid. The directions contained in paragraph 44 of the said judgment of the Apex Court dated 04.11.2022 read as follows:
5
Cont.Case (C)No.2713 of 2019
“44. We accordingly hold and direct:-
(i) The provisions contained in the notification No. G.S.R.609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent subparagraphs.
(ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification No. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed.
(iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1st September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.
(iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others [(2018) 14 SCC 809] . The scheme as it stood before 1st September 2014 did not
6
Cont.Case (C)No.2713 of 2019
provide for any cut-off date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering preamended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post-amendment scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with.
(v) The employees who had retired prior to 1st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.
(vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014.
(vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15,000/- per month as an additional
7
Cont.Case (C)No.2713 of 2019
contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees’ contribution shall be as stop gap measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made.
(viii) We do not find any flaw in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary.
(ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre-amendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph.
(x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1917 - 1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms.”
8
Cont.Case (C)No.2713 of 2019
Organisation, for the respondent.
In the said circumstances, this Contempt Case is closed, without prejudice to the right of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation to reconsider the entitlement of the petitioners for disbursement of higher pension, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.8143-44 of 2022 and connected matters [2022 (7) KHC 12 : AIR 2022 SC
5634] .
Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/- SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE
AV/10/10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant relief in a contempt case filed for non-compliance of earlier directions pending the outcome of employer vs. employees pension dispute in Supreme Court.
How the Apex Court judgment in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. impacts the entitlement of petitioners for higher pension.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B.Relied on¶35
[2022 (7) KHC 12 : AIR 2022 SC 5634] · Who else cites this
R.C. Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund CommissionerReferred¶54
R.C. Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others [(2018) 14 SCC 809]
Luyis C.
Varghese C.A.
Venu V.R.
Jacob P.P.
Raveendran V.T.
Ahamedkutty U.P
Anil K. Narendran
Sophy Thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court