B.P. Mohammed Koya Keezhannithodi and Others v. Union of India and Others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
- Judgment Date
- 2023-08-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- This writ petition is disposed of directing the competent among the respondents to re-consider the petitioners’ claims in the light of the Supreme Court’s directions in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) within three months from receipt of a copy of the judgment.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- 1 B.P. Mohammed Koya Keezhannithodi
- 2 V. Ali
- 3 V. Sivanandan
- 4 T. Abdulla
- 5 Aboobacker Koya P.M.
- 6 M.P. Abdul Kareem
- 7 K. Ravindran
- 8 T. Abboobacker
- 9 A.K. Basheer Palliyil Thodi
- 10 C. Abdulla
- 11 P. Mammed Koya
- 12 K. Shoukathali
- 13 P. Krishnan
- 14 T.K. Velayudhan
- 15 Sadeesan C.M.
- 16 V. Abdul Azeez
- 17 P.A. Hussain Shareef
- 18 P.K. Muraleedharan
- 19 M.P. Moideen Koya
- 20 C.P. Alavikutty
- 21 P.T. Abdul Gafoor
- 22 P. Abdul Azeez
- 23 M. Azad
- 24 C.P.M. Saeed Ahammed
- 25 O.V. Ahammed Koya
- 26 N. Abdul Azeez
- 27 C.K. Abdurahman
- 28 M.K. Syed Mohamed
- 29 K.G. Baby
- 30 A Raghavan
- 31 C. Gopi Menon
- 32 K. Padmanabhan
- 33 P.S. Lakshmy
- 34 Roshina A.P.
Respondents
- Union of India represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment
- Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation
- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Kochi
- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Trivandrum
- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Kozhikode
- Chandrika Daily, Kozhikode – 673 001
- United News India, Mananchira Square, Pavamani Road, Opp. Commissioner Office, Kozhikode – 673 004
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Dheeraj Krishnan Perot
- • Chitra Johnson
- • V.V. Nandagopal Nambiar
- • Smitha K.P
Counsels for Respondents
- • R. Prasanth Kumar, CGC
- • Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara, SC, EPFO
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition (WP(C) No.15379 of 2020) is filed by 34 retired employees/subscribers of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) challenging pension computation under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioners contend that pension must be fixed by taking into account the average monthly pay drawn during the contributory period (the 12 months immediately preceding exit) and by including 8 1/3% of the full contribution made by the 6th and 7th respondent establishments, without an artificial wage ceiling. They argue that pension should be paid in accordance with the pre-amended paragraph 11 of the Pension Scheme, i.e., not limited by the maximum pensionable salary prescribed in paragraph 11(3). They rely on Ext P2 (the 2018 ILR judgment in WPC No.13120/2015, ILR 2019 (1) Kerala 614) to support higher pension benefits. The respondents’ counsel submits that the question is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) and that the petition should be decided in light of that ruling. The High Court disposes of the petition by directing respondents 2–5 to re-consider the petitioners’ claims in light of the Sunil Kumar B decision within three months, noting Ext P2 but not granting relief beyond remand to apply the Supreme Court directive.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners seek higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as per the option exercised, arguing pension should be computed on the basis of average monthly pay during the contributory period and should include 8 1/3% of the full contribution from the 6th and 7th establishments, without artificial wage ceilings. They contend pension should be paid in terms of the pre-amended paragraph 11 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, rather than being limited by the maximum pensionable salary. They rely on Ext P2 (ILR 2019 Ker. 614) to justify higher benefits and urge adherence to the pre-amendment regime pending the decision in Sunil Kumar B.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents’ counsel contends the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) and that the petition should be decided in light of that direction. They draw the court’s attention to the recent Supreme Court guidance and urge follow-up action consistent with that ruling. They argue that Ext P2 is not binding in light of the Supreme Court directive and that relief should be framed within the new standard.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others | 2022 SCC Online SC 1521 | Positive | The High Court relies on this Supreme Court decision to settle the central issue and to guide the reconsideration directive in light of that ruling. |
| WPC 13120/2015 | ILR 2019 (1) Kerala 614 | Mentioned Only | Ext P2 judgment cited by the petitioners as support for higher pension; the High Court mentions it but bases its disposition on the Supreme Court directive rather than Ext P2. |
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 B.P. Mohammed Koya Keezhannithodi 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.