Dismissed

Moyyadan Narayani, v. Kerala State Unorganised Workers Social Security Board

Kerala HC9 Feb 2024WP(C)/1349/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners (siblings) challenged denial of benefits under Kerala Artisan Skilled Workers Welfare Fund Scheme. Court held benefits run only to the nominated heir (mother) per Scheme terms, dismissing petition since Scheme was not impugned, leaving merits undecided.

What did the court decide?

Exhibits P9 and P10 set aside; Authorities directed to disburse benefits denied to petitioners left as left undecided due to non-challenge to Scheme.

Moyyadan Narayani, Vs Kerala State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1349 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MOYYADAN NARAYANI, AGED 69 YEARS D/O. LATE NARAYANAN AND LATE M. V KALLYANI, MEETHALS VEETTIL, KAVUNGAL, PATTUVAM POST, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 143.

¶8

2 MEETHALE VEETTIL MOHANAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. LATE NARAYANAN AND LATE M. V KALLYANI, KARMEL, ANNUR POST, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 307.

¶9

3 MEETHALE VEETTIL SHYAMALA, AGED 55 YEARS D/O. LATE NARAYANAN AND LATE M. V KALLYANI, KAVUNGAL, PATTUVAM POST KANNUR DISTRICT 670 143.

¶10

4 MEETHALE VEETTIL SREEMATHI, AGED 49 YEARS D/O. LATE NARAYANAN AND LATE M. V KALLYANI, KAVUNGAL, PATTUVM POST, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 143.

¶11

BY ADV R.SREEHARI

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 KERALA STATE UNORGANISED WORKERS SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD, LABOUR WELFARE FUND BOARD, BUILDING, T C NO. 28/2875(1) KUNNUMPURAM ROAD, VANCHIYOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE UNORGANISED WORKERS AND SOCIAL SECURITY, BOARD, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LABOUR WELFARE FUND BOARD BUILDINGS, T C NO. 28/2857 (1) KUNNUMPURAM ROAD, VANCHIYOOR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 035.

¶15

3 DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA STATE UNORGANIZED WORKERS SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD, ASOKA BUILDING, THALIKAVU ROAD, KANNUR 670 002.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI. P.S.APPU, GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 1349/22

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are stated to be the siblings of late

¶23

M.V.Omana, who, they assert, was a member of the Kerala Artisan Skilled Workers Welfare Fund Scheme, 1986, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Scheme’ for short), propounded by the Government of Kerala through their order dated 02.02.2016. They say that since Smt.Omana died without any legal heirs, except them, they are entitled to the proceeds of the benefits under the ‘Scheme’, but that this has been denied to them by the Authorities citing certain specific reasons, as is available from Exts.P9 and P10. They thus pray that Exts.P9 and P10 be set aside and the Authorities be directed to disburse to them the eligible amounts under the ‘Scheme’, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court .

¶24

2 . Sri.R.Sreehari – learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that since late Omana was not married and did not have children and since her mother predeceased her, the only legal heirs under Section 15 of the Indian Succession Act are his clients; and that, therefore, they are entitled to the benefits under the ‘Scheme’.

¶25

WPC 1349/22

¶26

¶27

He argued that, for this reason also, the impugned orders are

¶28

untenable.

¶29

3 . In response, however, Sri.P.S.Appu – learned Government Pleader, submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record on behalf of his clients, wherein, it has been explained that the obtention of benefits under the ‘Scheme’ are not governed by either the Indian Succession Act or any other Statute, but its own terms. He submitted that, therefore, it is only if the petitioners are able to establish that they are entitled to the benefits under the ‘Scheme’ , can they make any claim. He explained that, as per the specific covenants of the ‘Scheme’, when a member enters it, he/she is to nominate all heirs, but that there is a restriction in i t that the classes of such persons will have to be confined as per Clause 2 (i) thereof. He then pointed out that, as per the afore Clause, a ‘family’ has been defined to be either husband or wife, unmarried daughter or minor son, father or mother; and that thereafter, the word ‘heir’ has been defined to mean those persons who are so nominated. He explained that late Omana nominated only her mother as her heir under the ‘Scheme’, and therefore, that when the latter predeceased

¶30

¶31

WPC 1349/22

¶32

the former, the benefits under the ‘Scheme’ becomes payable to no

¶33

one else. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶34

4 . In reply, Sri.R.Sreehari pointed out that, the word ‘heir’

¶35

has been defined under the ‘Scheme’, as per Clause 2 (j) thereof, which shows that a person nominated by the member under Clause 21 thereof would alone be included in such ambit. He, however, pointed out that Clause 21 of the ‘Scheme’ relates to the entitlement of the member to pension and other benefits and hence, that the respondents cannot rely upon the said provision to deny his client’s eligible benefits.

¶36

5 . An evaluation of the afore provisions will certainly require a close examination of the terms of the ‘Scheme’.

¶37

6 . As rightly argued by the learned Government Pleader, every member who enters the ‘Scheme’ is expected, by Clause 6 thereof, to nominate his or her nominee, who would, however, ha ve to be only within the categories of persons mentioned in Section 2(i) thereof. Coming to Clause 2(i), it, in fact, defines the word ‘family’ restrictively, by including only the father, mother, unmarried daughter and minor son. Thereafter, under Clause 2(j), a ‘nominee’

¶38

WPC 1349/22

¶39

¶40

is defined to be that person who is nominated by the member, but referring to Clause 21. This is what Sri.R.Sreehari tried to point out, saying that the ‘Scheme’ is defective; but it is evident from its tenor that Section 2(j) refers to the ‘nominee’ as being the person nominated by the member and hence, this could only be referable to Clause 6 of the ‘Scheme’, rather than 21, which can only, therefore, be seen to be a mistake.

¶41

7 . That apart, when the petitioners do not have any contest against the ‘Scheme’, nor they impugn it as being illegal, I cannot fathom how they can now take a contention that, because there is a mistake in the manner of drafting Clause 2(j) thereof, they should be entitled to benefits. This is not possible because, as I have already said above, it is only the person nominated by the member alone who will be entitled to the benefits - whether it be when he/she was alive or otherwise; and this is manifest from the fact that Clause 20 of the ‘Scheme’ says that all posthumous benefits shall run only to the ‘nominee’ and no one else and here, that word is again referable to Clause 2(j), as mentioned above.

¶42

In the afore circumstances, without the petitioners having

¶43

WPC 1349/22

¶44

¶45

challenged the ‘Scheme’, they certainly could not have approached

¶46

this Court impugning Exts.P9 and P10, which, I am certain, is irreproachable.

¶47

Resultantly, this Writ Petition is dismissed, however, leaving every other liberty, as may be available to the petitioners, open; for which purpose, all their other contentions in such regard are left

¶48

undecided.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

RR

¶51

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

WPC 1349/22

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1349/2022

¶56

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1PHOTO COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF OMANA M
V.
Exhibit P2PHOTO COPY OF LEGAL HERSHIP CERTIFIED DTD.
11.06.2019 ISSUED BY TAHASILDAR,
THALIPARAMBA.
Exhibit P3PHOTO COPY OF IDENTITY CARD OF OMANA M V.
Exhibit P4PHOTO COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF M V
KALLYANI.
Exhibit P5PHOTO COPY OF LEGAL HEIR CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA DT.
30.01.2019.
Exhibit P6PHOTO COPY OF UNORGANIZED WORKERS SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT, 2006 (ACT 33/2008).
Exhibit P7PHOTO COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT
DATED 26.11.2018 ISEUD BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8PHOTO COPY OF PETITION DTD.26.06.2020
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9PHOTO COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD.
18.10.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10PHOTO COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.11.2021 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT .

Moyyadan Narayani, v. Kerala State Unorganised Workers Social Security Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moyyadan Narayani, v. Kerala State Unorganised Workers Social Security Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Al- Hind Travel Portal LLP Vs the Investigation Officer

Salin Kumar V.R Vs Remla Beevi . I

A. Sarabeevi Vs Southern Railway

Sumesh Thankachan Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Thalassery

N. Sundareshan Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Mohan Vs the State of Kerala