Disposed

Sankaran Nair.P v. Union of India

Kerala HC6 Jun 2024WP(C)/25903/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retired employee sought higher EPF pension based on actual salary under proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, relying on Sunil Kumar B. The court directed him to submit source documents within one month and directed the Provident Fund Establishment to process his joint option for higher pension within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to provide documents within one month; Provident Fund Establishment to process joint option for higher pension within six months.

Sankaran Nair.P Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 25903 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SANKARAN NAIR P.,
AGED 63 YEARS, VINAYAKAMTHOPPIL,
THRIKKAKKARA P. O., ERNAKULAM-682 021,
P.P.O. NO. KR/KCH/00097405, UAN NO.100335470259.

¶8

BY ADVS.
 SRI. P. N. MOHANAN
 SMT. AMRUTHA SURESH
 SRI. C. P. SABARI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1UNION OF INDIA (UOI),
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT,
NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶11

2REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
(EPFO), BHAVISHANIDHI BHAVAN,
KALOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 017.

¶12

3EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUSTEE,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING TRUSTEE,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE,
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, WAZIRPUR,
NEW DELHI - 110 052.

¶13

4 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-1 (PENSION), BHAVISHYA NITHI BHAVAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 066.

¶14

5TECHNI BHARATHI PRIVATE LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, 34/136A,
BY-PASS ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHIN-24, PIN-682 024.

¶15

BY ADV.
 SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 25903 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 25903 of 2020

¶21

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2024

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs;

¶24

i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing, second respondent to collect pension contribution towards the EPF Pension Scheme of the petitioner on the basis of actual salary drawn by him, in terms of proviso to Cl. 11(3) of the pension scheme, from the date of joining the pension Scheme and to revise the pension in the light of Ext. P-11 & P2 Judgments.

¶25

ii) Declare that petitioner is entitled to get pension contribution towards the EPF Pension Scheme of the petitioner on the basis of actual salary drawn by him, in terms of proviso to Cl. 11(3) of the pension scheme, from the date of joining the pension Scheme as declared in the Ext. P-3 and P12 Judgments.

¶26

iii) Issue a direction to the second and fifth respondents to revise the pension of

¶27

WP(C) NO. 25903 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

the petitioner in the light of Exhibit P-12, Judgment with a further direction to the fifth respondent to issue joint option if required again by the second respondent and to furnish all the details for the same;

¶30

iv) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶31

The petitioner has got retired from the service of the 5^th respondent on 30.06.2015 i.e. before the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organization and Another v. Sunil Kumar B. and Others [2022 (7) KHC 12] .

¶32

Mr. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner case is covered by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar B. (supra) and the petitioner and employer has given the joint option. However, the source documents (documents like wage details [Form 3A/6A]), contribution towards pension fund) are to be verified to confirm the eligibility for higher pension for which communication has been addressed to the petitioner and his employer. The source documents pertaining for the period of service from 24.01.2001 to 28.06.2015 is being sought from the

¶33

WP(C) NO. 25903 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

petitioner’s employer. However, the source documents were split off the employment prior to 2001 is not available in the Provident Fund Office. The petitioner is being asked to forward the source documents in respect of the establishment where he rendered the service prior to 2001.

¶36

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will provide the necessary details and documents to the Provident Fund Establishment within a period of one month.

¶37

I have considered the submissions. The petitioner is directed to provide the necessary details and documents to the Provident Fund Establishment within a period of one month. After

¶38

the petitioner submits the requisite documents, the Provident Fund Establishment shall process the joint option submitted by the petitioner for claiming higher pension within a period of six months.

¶39

With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶42

Svn

¶43

WP(C) NO. 25903 OF 2020

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25903/2020

¶46

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶47

`EXHIBIT P1`	`A TRU` `CONTRI`	`E COPY OF` `BUTIONS DATED`	`THE DETAILS OF THE` `05.12.2016.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`A TRUE` `10.12.`	`COPY OF TH` `2019 OF THE F`	`E JOINT OPTION FORM DATED` `IFTH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`A TRUE` `IN WPC`	`COPY OF THE` `NO.6643/2007`	`JUDGMENT DATED 04.11.2011` `.`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`A TRUE` `IN WA`	`COPY OF THE` `NO.1137/2012.`	`JUDGMENT DATED 05.03.2013`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`A TRUE` `SLP NO`	`COPY OF THE` `.7074/2014.`	`ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 IN`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE` `20.02.` `FUND C`	`COPY OF` `2007 ISSUED` `OMMISSIONER,`	`THE PROCEEDINGS DATED` `BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`A TRUE` `CIVIL`	`COPY OF THE` `APPEAL NO.100`	`ORDER DATED 04.10.2016 IN` `13/2016.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`A TRUE` `THE FO`	`COPY OF THE` `URTH RESPONDE`	`ORDER DATED 25.03.2017 OF` `NT.`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`A TRU` `26.02.`	`E COPY OF` `2018 OF THE F`	`THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `OURTH RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT P10`	`A TRU` `22.08.`	`E COPY OF` `2014.`	`THE GSR 609 (E) DATED`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`A TRUE` `IN WPC`	`COPY OF THE` `NO,.34145/20`	`JUDGMENT DATED 25.02.2019` `17.`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`A TRUE` `2019 (`	`COPY OF THE` `1) KER 614.`	`JUDGMENT REPORTED IN ILR`
`EXHIBIT P13`	`A TRUE` `SLP NO`	`COPY OF THE` `.9610/2019.`	`ORDER DATED 01.04.2019 IN`

Sankaran Nair.P v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankaran Nair.P v. Union of India

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

Nandakumar Vs the Deputy Director, Esi Corporation

Jailavudeen Vs the Tahasildar

Ramakrishnan Vs the District Executive Officer

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Alex Soharab V.F.

John P.M., Vs Bank of Baroda

P.G. Vasanthakumar Vs Deputy Labour Officer