Disposed

Abdul Rahiman.P.M v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala HC9 Aug 2023WP(C)/8401/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition seeking pension and higher pensionable salary. It directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to reconsider the petitioners' claims based on the Supreme Court ruling in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and submit a fresh representation within one month.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent directed to reconsider the petitioners' claims in light of the Supreme Court judgment and consider a fresh representation within three months.

Abdul Rahiman.P.M Vs the Regional Provident… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8401 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1ABDUL RAHIMAN P.M
AGED 59 YEARS
(RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF M/S. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,
PF ACCOUNTANT NO.KR/KK/11299/645)
SUBAH MANZIL (D NO.11),
K.T.A. NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,

¶8

PUTHUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD – 678 731
MOB NO.9446279868.

¶9

2B. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR
(RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF M/S. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,
PF ACCOUNTANT NO.KR/KK/11299/16)
SANTHINI VILASAM, PIPELINE ROAD,
NRA-G-65, NEAR PRABATH COLLEGE,
PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 005.

¶10

3T. MOHANAKRISHNAN
(RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF M/S. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,
PF ACCOUNTANT NO.KR/KK/11299/727) ATHIRA,
THERUVATH, KODANGAD, KONDOTTI P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 673 638.

¶11

4J.VARGHESE
(RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF M/S. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,
PF ACCOUNTANT NO.KR/KK/11299/442)
KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, MUNDAKODE,
CHANDRANAGAR P.O, PALAKKAD – 678 007.

¶12

5A. ABDUL RAHIM
(RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF M/S. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,
PF ACCOUNTANT NO.KR/KK/11299/638) FIRDOUSE,
PIRIVUSALA, CHANDRANAGAR P.O,
PALAKKAD – 678 007.

¶13

6SREEKUMAR
SON OF K.S.NAIR, (RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF M/S.
MALABAR CEMENTS LTD, PF ACCOUNTANT
NO.KR/KK/11299/1135) ROHINI, HOUSE NO.53,
SURYA NAGAR, PIRIVUSALA, CHANDRANAGAR P.O,
PALAKKAD – 678 007.

¶14

7A.P.SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE
(RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF M/S. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD,
PF ACCOUNTANT NO.KR/KK/11299/11299)
SHARMADA, ANUGRAHA COLONY,
VALIYAPADAM,

¶15

C.N.PURAM P. O, PALAKKAD – 678 005.

¶16

WP(C).No.8401 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

BY ADVS.
ASOK M.CHERIAN
SRI.N.SATHEESH
SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY
PRIYA CAROL

¶19

RESPONDENTS:

¶20

1 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER SUB REGIONAL FUND OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROIVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERNHIPALAM P.O, KOZHIKODE – 673 006.

¶21

2 M.C.L. EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, C/O. MALABAR, CEMENTS LTD, VALAYAR.P.O, PALAKKAD – 678 624.

¶22

3 M/S. MALABAR CEMENTS LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, VALAYAR P.O, PALAKKAD – 678 624.

¶23

BY ADVS.

¶24

DR. ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA - SC, EPF ORG.
SMT. LATHA ANAND

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).No.8401 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶30

reliefs:-

¶31

“i) Declare that petitioners have a right to get pension under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 framed under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 immediately on their retirement.

¶32

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to disburse pension to the petitioners fixing the same reckoning their actual pay (basic with dearness allowance) as pensionable salary, forthwith.

¶33

iii) Direct the 1^st respondent to pay penal interest to the pension paid delayed, till the date of payment of the same.”

¶34

The petitioners are retired employees of the

¶35

3^rd respondent establishment. They are subscribers of Employees’ Provident Fund. According to the petitioners, they are entitled for higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as per the option exercised by

¶36

WP(C).No.8401 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

them. It is their case that the pension has to be paid without limiting the amount to the maximum pensionable salary prescribed in paragraph 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.

¶39

Sri.Abraham P.Meachinkara, the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation submits that the question raised in the writ petition is now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others [2022 SCC online SC 1521] and that the 1^st respondent is willing to consider the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with the directions therein.

¶40

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to re-consider the claims put forward by the petitioners in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision cited above, on the petitioners

¶41

WP(C).No.8401 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

submitting a fresh representation within a period of

¶44

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1^st respondent shall consider such representation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the same. Needless to say, the petitioners shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing through their duly authorised representative.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶47

SPR

¶48

WP(C).No.8401 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-

¶52

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT DATED 22.06.2015 RECEIVED BY` `THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT - TRUST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `DATED 30.06.2019 WHICH SHOWS REMITTANCE` `OF ARREARS OF PENSION CONTRIBUTION` `CONCERNING THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT - TRUST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `DATED 31.07.2019 WHICH SHOWS REMITTANCE` `OF ARREARS OF PENSION CONTRIBUTION` `CONCERNING THE 2ND PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT - TRUST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `DATED 30.06.2019 WHICH SHOWS REMITTANCE` `OF ARREARS OF PENSION CONTRIBUTION` `CONCERNING THE 3RD PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT - TRUST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `DATED 31.05.2019 WHICH SHOWS REMITTANCE` `OF ARREARS OF PENSION CONTRIBUTION` `CONCERNING THE 4TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT - TRUST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `DATED 31.05.2019 WHICH SHOWS REMITTANCE` `OF ARREARS OF PENSION CONTRIBUTION` `CONCERNING THE 5TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT - TRUST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `DATED 31.07.2019 WHICH SHOWS REMITTANCE` `OF ARREARS OF PENSION CONTRIBUTION` `CONCERNING THE 6TH PETITIONER.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT - TRUST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `DATED 31.07.2019 WHICH SHOWS REMITTANCE` `OF ARREARS OF PENSION CONTRIBUTION` `CONCERNING THE 7TH PETITIONER.`

¶53

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

Abdul Rahiman.P.M v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahiman.P.M v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naseem Abdul Khader, Vs Prasad

K.G. Ashokan, Vs the Deputy Tahasildar

Sivanandan K.S., Vs the Welfare Fund Inspector

Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Vs Regional Pf Commissioner

M/S. Vega Plantations, Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

S.Gopalakrishnan Vs the Tahsildar (Lr)