Achuthaprasad V. Panjanjanyam and others v. Union of India and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
- Judgment Date
- 2023-08-16
- Court Decision / Holding
- This writ petition is disposed of directing the competent among the respondents to re-consider the claims put forward by the petitioners in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. and Others (2022) within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of with directions to re-consider the petitioners’ claims in light of the Sunil Kumar B. decision within three months from receipt of the judgment copy.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- ACHUTHAPRASAD V. PANJAJANYAM
- BADHARUDHEEN S.
- GOPALAKRISHNAN. P.
- JACOB SUNDARAN. A.
- JAYAKRISHNAN.K
- JINSHY P.
- MUKESH. K.
- NARAYANAN. K.
- PADMANABHAN. M.
- SASIKUMAR. C.K.
- SATHISH KUMAR.M.
- SEBY JOSE
- SHAJAHAN. K.D.
- SURESH KUMAR.V.A
- SAROJAM V.
- RAJA MOHAN C.
- JAYALAKSHMI.C.
- SANTHI R.
- HARIDAS.M.P.
- V.JALAJAKUMARI
- SEETHA.K.
- PADMAJA.K.
- VIJAYAKUMARI.S.
- USHA.M.
- ASWATHY.S.
- BEENA.B.
- MEENA.T.C.
- BINDU.C.
- ANITHA.R.
- MALINI.T.T.
- GEETHA.S.
- REMA.C.V.
- LAKSHMIKUTTY K.
- GEETHA.K.
- SOUMINI.K.
- SULEKSHA.V.
- KAVITHA.A.
- BEENA CHANDRAN.V.
- USHA.R.
- VIJAYAM.S.
- RATHY.P.
- KALPAKAVALLY.B.
- TEREESH.E.
- VASUDEVAN.M.
- VEERARAGHAVAN.R.V.
- VIJAYARAJAN P.
Respondents
- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI – 110 001.
- CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 066.
- EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 'BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN', ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA – 673 006.
- 4BPL TELECOM PVT.LTD., KOTTUPATHA, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD – 678 007, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SRI. ASOK M.CHERIAN
- • SRI. N.SATHEESH
- • SRI. K.JANARDHANA SHENOY
- • SRI.J OSON MANAVALAN
- • SRI. KURYAN THOMAS
- • SRI. PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
- • SRI. JAI MOHAN
Counsels for Respondents
- • DR. ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA - SC
- • SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
- • SRI. K.JOHN MATHAI
- • SRI.J OSON MANAVALAN
- • SRI. KURYAN THOMAS
- • SRI. PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
- • SRI. JAI MOHAN
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition, filed in theKerala High Court, is brought by 46 former employees of the 4th respondent (4BPL Telecom Pvt. Ltd.) who are subscribers to the Employees’ Provident Fund. The petitioners contend they are entitled to pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, calculated on their actual salary from the date of joining the pension scheme, by exercising a joint option with the 4th respondent PF Organisation. They seek a declaration that pension must be paid based on actual salary and a mandamus directing the respondents to accept the joint option and transfer the appropriate portion of the employer’s contribution from their Provident Fund accounts to the Employee Pension Fund, along with arrears calculated on actual salary. The respondents dispute this claim, and counsel for the EPFO points to a Supreme Court ruling in EPF Organisation vs. Sunil Kumar B. and Others (2022) that settles the issue under consideration and should guide the disposal. The Kerala High Court, accepting this submission, disposes of the petition by directing the competent respondents to re-consider the petitioners’ claims in light of the Sunil Kumar B. decision within three months from the date of receipt of the judgment copy. The order thus provides a pathway to revisit pension claims under the Higher Court’s guidance without granting immediate relief.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend they are entitled to pension on the basis of their actual salary under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, from the date of joining the Pension Scheme, based on the option exercised jointly with the 4th respondent. They seek a declaration that pension should be calculated on actual salary and a mandamus to accept the joint option and transfer the employer’s contribution to the Employee Pension Fund along with arrears.
Contentions of Respondents
The EPFO’s counsel submits that the issue is now settled by a Supreme Court decision, EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. and Others (2022), and that the petitioners’ grievance should be addressed per that ruling; the court should dispose accordingly.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. and Others | 2022 SCC online SC 1521 | Positive | The court explicitly relies on this Supreme Court ruling to settle the issue and directs reconsideration consistent with its directions. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Achuthaprasad V. Panjanjanyam and others v. Union of India and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.