This court disposed of the writ petition directed the petitioner’s claim to be considered in terms of directions issued by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. & Others. The matter is sub-judice pending Supreme’s final order.
Claim to be considered in terms of Supreme Court directions in Sunil Kumar B. & Others.
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 GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 16370 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
GEORGE PANICKER P.C AGED 65 YEARS PANICKER VILLA, CC/30/1671 (NEW NO.48/701), NARAYANAN ASAN ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTIA, KOCHI - 682019, MOB. NO.9447146590
BY ADVS. ASOK M.CHERIAN N.SATHEESH K.JANARDHANA SHENOY
RESPONDENT/S:
W.P (C) No.16370/2019
-2-
P. O., KOTTAYAM - 686601
BY ADVS. SMT.GIRIJA.L., ADDL.CGSC SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.J.SURYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.16370/2019
-3-
J U D G M E N T
When this matter is taken up for consideration today it is submitted that the issues in this writ petition are covered by the directions issued by the Supreme Court in The Employees Provident Fund Organization and
another. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Others; 2022 (6) KLT 234 (SC) .
The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing that the claim of the petitioner shall also be considered in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar (supra).
Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE
AMG
W.P (C) No.16370/2019
-4-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16370/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.06.2012
| EXHIBIT P2 | A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.08.2012 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER AS REPLY TO EXHIBIT P1 |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P3 | A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.10.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P4 | A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.05.2013 |
| EXHIBIT P5 | A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO.6643 OF 2007 DATED 04.11.2011 |
| EXHIBIT P6 | A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05.03.2013 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2012 AND CONNECTED CASES |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner’s claim is covered by the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. v. The Employees Provident Fund Organization.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunil Kumar B. & OthersRelied on¶24
The Employees Provident Fund Organization and another. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Others; 2022 (6) KLT 234 (SC)
GEORGE PANICKER
UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
SUB-REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, KOTTAYAM
SUB-REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, ERNAKULAM
GOPINATH P.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
