High Court of KeralaDivision BenchDisposed of

Cont.Case (C) No. 2091 of 2019

Case / Petition Number:CON.CASE(C) NO. 2091 OF 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • ANIL K. NARENDRAN
  • G. GIRISH
Judgment Date
2023-11-07
Court Decision / Holding
This Contempt Case is closed, without prejudice to EPFO's right to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement for higher pension in view of the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment. The EPFO is directed to undertake the reconsideration in accordance with law and within the framework laid down by the 2022 decision, and the petitioners retain their rights under the Supreme Court’s directions.
Final Disposition
Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • KUNJU.P.K.
  • VIJAYAKUMAR V
  • JOHN JOSEPH K.G
  • THOMAS D
  • BALACHANDRAN NAIR M.R
  • NANDAKUMAR K
  • SATHIAN P
  • THOMAS P J
  • CHERIAN E.A
  • SOBHANA PAUL
  • STANESLAVOSE I.V
  • PAUL P P
  • NADARAJAN ACHARY N
  • SASIDHARAN NAIR G
  • JOSEPH N
  • SUDARSANAN A.N
  • BHADRAN M
  • VISWAMBARAN R
  • PAULOSE
  • ABDUL SALAM
  • DENESH M R
  • BALU JOHN
  • JAMES V P
  • SIVADASAN M P
  • RAVEENDRAN K A
  • JAYASHAJ N
  • VENUGOPLAN T.M
  • RAMACHANDRAN C
  • JOSEPH P.G.
  • GIRIJA A
  • OMANAKUTTY K.N
  • BABU P.K
  • SURESH K K
  • JAYAKUMAR A V
  • SUGATHAN P.A
  • VIJAYA MOHANADAS G
  • SAHADEVAN O.G
  • JOSE M.E
  • RAJENDRAN N
  • MUKUNDAN V V
  • ASOKAN V N
  • RAMACHANDRAN NAIR S
  • SREEDHARAN K P
  • SHINE T B
  • JOY VARGHESE M
  • JOSEPH K.A
  • VIMALAKUMARA SARMA K.N
  • UNNI T P
  • GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR G
  • RAMACHANDRAN ACHARY R
  • SREEDHARAN P K
  • PAVTIHRAN P
  • ASOKAN U.K
  • JAYAN K K
  • JOHN T P
  • SREE KUMAR S
  • SREEDHARAN M.M
  • EMMANUEL K.J
  • JAYAKUMAR B
  • JAYAPRAKASH A K

Respondents

  • Kavitha N. George
  • V. Andrew Prabhu

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
  • • SHRI.N.SATHEESH
  • • SHRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SMT. NITA.N.S

Case Synopsis & Summary

Cont.Case (C) No. 2091 of 2019 is a contempt petition filed by a large group of petitioners (former petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 31850 of 2016) alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure I to the Kerala High Court’s judgment dated 12 October 2018 in W.P.(C) 31850/2016 and connected matters. The petitioners’ challenge centers on the implementation of pension reforms under the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) scheme, particularly following the 2014 amendment notified as G.S.R. 609(E). The Supreme Court’s detailed decision dated 04 November 2022 in Civil Appeals Nos. 8143-44 of 2022 (and connected matters) held that the 2014 notification is legal and valid, read down certain provisions of the pension scheme, and extended options under the amended scheme with time adjustments, while relying on earlier precedents such as RC Gupta (2018) 14 SCC 809. The Kerala High Court, after considering the Apex Court’s directions, held that the petitioners’ entitlement for higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO in accordance with law. The court directed EPFO to undertake the exercise in line with the 2022 judgment and closed the contempt case, reserving the petitioners’ rights under the Supreme Court’s directions. The order underscores the judiciary’s insistence on lawful recalibration of pension entitlements within the statutory framework while ensuring remedy to affected employees.

Provisions of Law Cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — Section 12G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 August 2014 (amendment to pension scheme)Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952Article 142 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Ultra vires
  • Read down (interpretation/limitation of statutory provisions)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Annexure I directions in the 2018 W.P.(C) judgment have not been duly implemented by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO). They rely on the 2018 RC Gupta precedent and the Supreme Court’s 2022 Sunil Kumar B. decision to argue that the enhanced pension and the option framework under the amended 2014 scheme must be given effect to, including extending options under paragraph 11(4) and safeguarding the pre- and post-amendment rights, with proper time frames. They assert that denial or delayed compliance constitutes contempt of Court and that the scheme’s readjustments must be completed within the judicially prescribed parameters. The petitioners seek enforcement of the 2018 directions and a prompt, lawful disbursement of higher pension where eligible, maintaining consistency with the 2022 Apex Court judgment and related precedents.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents, EPFO, concede the need to revisit entitlement in light of the 2022 Supreme Court decision and direct the exercise under the law. They submit that the EPFO must undertake a careful, law-bound reconsideration of pension entitlements, ensuring compliance with amended provisions and directions of the Supreme Court, including readjustments in accordance with the notification and scheme amendments. They urge dismissal of outright contempt, contending that the contemnors’ remedies lie in the ongoing statutory framework and the forthcoming recalibration exercise, with the contempt petition set aside once the reconsideration is completed in a lawful manner.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
R.C. Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others(2018) 14 SCC 809PositiveCited to interpret and apply the pension scheme provisions (pre- and post-amendment) and relied upon in the 2022 Apex Court judgment.
Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B.[2022] AIR 5634; 2022 (7) KHC 12PositiveSupreme Court decision relied upon to validate G.S.R. 609(E) amendments and to direct extension/adjustment of pension options; forms the basis of reconsideration and directions in the current case.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Cont.Case (C) No. 2091 of 2019 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` # **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.GIRISH ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ``` CON.CASE(C) NO. 2091 OF 2019 ``` ``` ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2018 IN WP(C)NO. 31850/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:`** ``` 1KUNJU.P.K., AGED 62 YEARS S/O. KURIAN, PULIVELIL HOUSE, THOTTUMKATHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P O, KOCHI-682020(PETITIONER NO.1 IN WPC 31850/2016) 2VIJAYAKUMAR V AGED 67 YEARS S/O. VASUDEVAN N, VISHNU KRIPS, VAKKAD ROAD, PANAMPALLI NAGAR, COCHIN-36. (PETITIONER NO.2 IN WPC 31850/2016) 3JOHN JOSEPH K.G, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.K.J. GEORGE, KODUVELI HOUSE, KAILAS NAGAR, PUTHIYA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682025, (PETITIONER NO.3 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 4THOMAS D AGED 66 YEARS S/O. DEVASSIA, KIZHAKKETTAM HOUSE, THOTTUNKATHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682020 (PETITIONER NO.4 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 5BALACHANDRAN NAIR M.R, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, 57/1071, KEZHUPPILLIL MADOM, KEZHUPPILLIL LANE, KADAVANTHRA P O, 682020, (PETITIONER NO.5 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 6NANDAKUMAR K AGED 67 YEARS ``` 2 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 ``` S/O. M.K.K. PILLAI, NANDU LAND, MIG/368, PANAMPILLY NAGAR.682036, (PETITIONER NO.6 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 7SATHIAN P AGED 64 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. NARAYANAN P, SOPANAM HOUSE, AISWAYA NAGAR, ASSOCIATION ROAD, KADAVANTHRA-682020, (PETITIONER NO.14 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 8THOMAS P J, AGED 69 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. ANTONY P.C, THAITHARAMALAYIL HOUSE, THOTTUNKATHARA, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM 682020, (PETITIONER NO.31 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 9CHERIAN E.A, AGED 66 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. CHACKO ALIAS, ERATTAPLAMOOTTIL HOUSE, THOTTUMKATHARA ROA,D KADAVANTHRA P O, KOCHI-682020, (PETITIONER NO.53 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 10SOBHANA PAUL, AGED 66 YEARS ``` ``` D/O. R. PAUL, CHAMBAKOTTUKUDIYIL, THOTTUNGATHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-682020, (PETITIONER NO.122 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` - **`11 STANESLAVOSE I.V,`** ``` AGED 63 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. I.A VARGHESE, ITTYPATTA HOUSE, AISWARYA NAGAR ROAD, PUTHIYA ROAD, KOCHI-682025, (PETITIONER NO.123 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 12PAUL P P AGED 66 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. P.V. PAULOSE, PULLAN HOUSE, SOUTH CHILAVANOOR, KADAVANTHRA P O,ERNAKULAM. (PETITIONER NO.167 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ## **`13 NADARAJAN ACHARY N, AGED 66 YEARS`** ``` S/O. LAKSHMANAN, ARUNIMA, THOTTUNGALTHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P O, ERNAKULAM-682020 (PETITIONER NO.170 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ## **`14 SASIDHARAN NAIR G, AGED 68 YEARS`** ``` S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, SARIGA THOTTUNGALTHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P O, ERNAKULAM-682020. (PETITIONER NO.172 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` 3 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 ``` 15JOSEPH N AGED 65 YEARS NAZRATH, 28/2092, KIZHAKKADUTHU VEEDU, THOTTUNGATHARA ROAD, KOCI-682020, (PETITIONER NO.174 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 16SUDARSANAN A.N, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, AMBAT, GOLD LANE, ANCHUMURY, THAMMANAM, KOCHI-682032, (PETITIONER NO.259 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 17BHADRAN M AGED 67 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN K, MANGALATH HOUSE, VIVEK NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA-20, (PETITIONER NO. 335 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 18VISWAMBARAN R, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, INDEEVARAM, PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA, KOCHI-13, (PETITIONER NO.363 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 19PAULOSE, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. PAULOSE, 27/2657A, ELENJIKAL LANE, YUVAJANASMAJAM ROAD, KADAVANTHRA 682020,(PETITIONER NO.445 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 20ABDUL SALAM, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RAHMANKUJNU, SITHARA, AISWARYA NAGAR, PANDARACHIRA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA-682020, (PETITIONER NO.447 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 21DENESH M R AGED 64 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, MAVUMMOTIL HOUSE, AMBALAN AKG, ROAD, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, PRESENTLY RESIDING 80K, PUTHENVEETTIL, IYYERKADAVU ROAD, CHERANALLOOR, KOCHI-682034, (PETITIONER NO.484 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 22BALU JOHN AGED 64 YEARS S/O. N.J. JOHN, NJARACKAVELIL, PERUMANOOR P O, COCHIN15, (PETITIONER NO.485 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 23JAMES V P AGED 67 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. PHILIP V.P, VELLIYAMAKKAL HOUSE, C5-106, ``` 4 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 ``` INDIRA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020, (PETITIONER NO.500 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 24SIVADASAN M P AGED 63 YEARS S/O. PAZHANIMALA, PRASADAM, CC 28/2020, THOTTUMGATHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P O, PIN-682015, (PETITIONER NO.512 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 25RAVEENDRAN K A AGED 67 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAMANNADIAR, 28/1879, SOBHANJALY, CHILAVANOOR SOUTH, KOCHI-682020, (PETITIONER NO.516 IN WPC-31850/2016) ``` ``` 26JAYASHAJ N, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. NANOO, NAVAGEETHAM, PANDARACHIRA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA POST, KOCHI-682020, (PETITIONER NO.518 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 27VENUGOPLAN T.M AGED 67 YEARS S/O.KAMMARAN NAMBIAR, PRABHA, 31/198, JUNIOR JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. (PETITIONER NO.520 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 28RAMACHANDRAN C AGED 65 YEARS S/O. RAMAN NAIR, AISWARYA, KATTITHARA ROAD, MARADU P O, 682304, (PETITIONER NO.531 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 29JOSEPH P.G. AGED 63 YEARS S/O. P.J. GEORGE, H.NO.M 7 PADINJARAVEETIL, KASTHURBA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA P O, (PETITIONER NO.538 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 30GIRIJA A AGED 67 YEARS D/O.A.K. APPU, CHANDRAGIRI, ASSOCIATION ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, COCHIN-20, (PETITIONER NO.539 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 31OMANAKUTTY K.N, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, SREE PADMAN, FRIENDS NAGAR, KONTHURUTHY, COCHIN-13, (PETITIONER NO.540 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` 5 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 - **`32 BABU P.K, AGED 66 YEARS S/O P.A. KORU, PUTHEN VEETTIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH P O, VYPIN, KOCHI-682508, (PETITIONER NO.575 IN WPC 31850/2016)`** ``` 33SURESH K K, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. KUMARAN, KATTIPARAMBIL HOUISE, NARAYAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM-682509, (PETITIONER NO.579 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 34JAYAKUMAR A V, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. A.C. VELAYUDHAN, ARIPPARA HOUSE, SRA-76, CHATHAMVELIPADAM, THRIKKAKARA P O - 21, (PETITIONER NO.594 IN WPC 31850/2016) 35SUGATHAN P.A, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. P.K. ASOKAN, PANAIKULATH HOUSE, SAUHRADA NAGAR 75, THRIKKAKARA P O, 682021, (PETITIONER NO.595 IN WPC 31850/2016) 36VIJAYA MOHANADAS G AGED 66 YEARS S/O. K.P. GOPALAN, 28/1139, DARSANA, PADAM STOP, VIVEK NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20 (PETITIONER NO.589 IN WPC 31850/2016) 37SAHADEVAN O.G AGED 67 YEARS S/O.GOPALAN, H. NO.28/2023, KADAVANTHRA P O, KOCHI- 20, (PETITIONER NO.608 IN WPC 31850/2016) 38JOSE M.E, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. MANUEL T, MANIMALA HOUSE, CSRA-35, KADAVANTHRA P O, KOCHI-682020, (PETITIONER NO.609 IN WPC 31850/2016) 39RAJENDRAN N, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. NEELAKANDAN ACHARY, THIRUVATHIRA, FRIENDS NAGAR, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA P O, KOCHI-682013, (PETITIONER NO.622 IN WPC 31850/2016) 40MUKUNDAN V V AGED 65 YEARS S/O. VASU ELAYATH, VELUTHAMESSARY ILLOM, PANDAVATH ROAD, MARADU P O, 682004, (PETITIONER NO. 625IN WPC ``` 6 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 ## **`31850/2016)`** ``` 41ASOKAN V N AGED 67 YEARS S/O. K.K. VELAYUDHAN, POURNAMI, NALIKATTU NIKARTHIL, MOOLEPPADOM ROA,D KAKKANAD P O, KOCHI- 30, (PETITIONER NO.632 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 42RAMACHANDRAN NAIR S AGED 65 YEARS S/O. SIVARAMA PILLA, 28/2879, THUSHARAM, PONNETH SOUTH ROAD, KADAVANTHRA PO , KOCHI-682020, (PETITIONER NO.658 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 43SREEDHARAN K P AGED 68 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN K P, 33/2662, A SREENILAYAM, PONNURUNNI, EAST, VYTTILA 682019, (PETITIONER NO.659 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 44SHINE T B AGED 65 YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, CHEERAKUZHI HOUSE, CROSS ROAD, BYLANE NO.1, VYTTILA P O, PONNURUNNI, COCHIN-19 (PETITIONER NO.660 IN WPC 31850/2016) 45JOY VARGHESE M AGED 65 YEARS S/O. VARGHESE, MANAMMAL HOUSE, 48/2040 A, PONNURUNNI EAST, VYTTILA P O, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-19, (PETITIONER NO.661 IN WPC 31850/2016) 46JOSEPH K.A, AGED 74 YEARS S/O. ANTHAPPAN K.A, KONNULLIL HOUSE, DEEPAM ROAD, PONNURUNNI, ERNAKULAM-682019, (PETITIONER NO.663 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 47VIMALAKUMARA SARMA K.N AGED 65 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. K.N. NARAYANAN UNNI, KARTHIKA, P C CROSS ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P O, KOCHI-682019, (PETITIONER NO.664 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 48UNNI T P AGED 69 YEARS S/O. P.C PALLI, DIVYA, 28/1631, THOTTUNGATHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA 682020, (PETITIONER NO.669 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` 7 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 ## **`49 GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR G AGED 67 YEARS`** ``` S/O. GOVINDAN NAIR, GOKULAM HOUSE, PANDARACHIRA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P O, 682020, (PETITIONER NO.676 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 50RAMACHANDRAN ACHARY R AGED 66 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN ACHARY, ARUNIMA, KETTEZHATHU KADAVU, MARADU P O, ERNAKULAM, (PETITIONER NO.667 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 51SREEDHARAN P K, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. P.K. KORAN, USHUS, 26/1360 A, ST JOSEPH ROAD, THEVARA P O, KOCHI-13, (PETITIONER NO.680 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 52PAVTIHRAN P AGED 65 YEARS S/O. ACHUTHAN P, 28/1302, PATTERI HOUSE, VIVEK NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-682020, (PETITIONER NO.711 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 53ASOKAN U.K, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. KUNJAN KUTTY U.K, ULLADAPARAMBIL, RICE RESEARCH ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P O, KOCHI- 682019,(PETITIONER NO.752 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 54JAYAN K K, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN, KANNARKATTU HOUSE, GIRI NAGAR, SOUTH, KOCHI-682020, PRESENTLY RESIDING KANNARKATTU HOUSE, NEAR VALIYATHARA TEMPLE, THEKKUM BHAGAM, TRIPPUNITHURA, (PETITIONER NO.754 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 55JOHN T P AGED 69 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. PAPPU, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH KADAVANTHRA, ASSOCIATION ROAD, H.NO. 88, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI- 682020. (PETITIONER NO.759 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 56SREE KUMAR S, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. R. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SWATI . SAT. TOWNSHIP, 2098, PADMUKAL, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030, (PETITIONER NO.788 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` 8 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 ``` 57SREEDHARAN M.M, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. RAMUNNI KURUP, CHERAPURAM, UNNIGRAMAM, KAKKANAD P O, KOCHI-682030, (PETITIONER NO.791 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 58EMMANUEL K.J, AGED 70 YEARS S/O. K.A. JOSEPH, KADUNGAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHIYA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN- 682025,(PETITIONER NO.805 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 59JAYAKUMAR B, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RAGANJALEE, PLOT G.280, PANAMPILY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036, (PETITIONER NO.806 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` 60JAYAPRAKASH A K, AGED 69 YEARS S/O. S.AYYAPPAN, IDIYODIL, H. NO. 57/869, INDIRA NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-686020, (PETITIONER NO.812 IN WPC 31850/2016) ``` ``` BY ADVS. SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SHRI.N.SATHEESH SHRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 3 & 4:`** ``` 1KAVITHA N.GEORGE, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISTATION, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. ``` - **`2 V. ANDREW PRABHU, SUB REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NO.36/685A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM-682017.`** ``` BY ADV SMT. NITA.N.S. ``` ``` THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 9 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioners, who are some of the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.31850 of 2016, have filed this Contempt Case, invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure I judgment dated 12.10.2018 in that writ petition along with W.P.(C)No.13120 of 2015 and connected matters. 2. The SLP filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation against the judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.13120 of 2015 and connected cases were dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 01.04.2019 in SLP (C) - Diary No.9610 of 2019. That order was recalled and the Apex Court rendered a detailed judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.8143 of 2022 and 8144 of 2022 and connected matters- **Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. [2022 (7) KHC 12 : AIR 2022 SC 5634]** . In that judgment, the Apex Court held that the provisions contained in Notification No.GSR 609(E) dated 22.08.2014 is legal and valid. The directions contained in paragraph 44 of the said judgment of the Apex Court dated 04.11.2022 read as follows: “44. We accordingly hold and direct:- 10 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 (i) The provisions contained in the notification No. G.S.R.609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent subparagraphs. (ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification No. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22[nd] August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed. (iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1[st] September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. (iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1[st] September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of **R.C.** **Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others [(2018) 14 SCC 809]** . The scheme as it stood before 1[st] September 2014 did not provide for any cut-off date and thus those members shall 11 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post-amendment scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with. (v) The employees who had retired prior to 1[st] September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment. (vi) The employees who have retired before 1[st] September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014. (vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15,000/per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultra 12 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees’ contribution shall be as stop gap measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made. (viii) We do not find any flaw in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary. (ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of **R.C. Gupta** (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre-amendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph. (x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1917 - 1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms.” 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund 13 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 Organisation, for the respondents. 4. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.8143-44 of 2022 and connected matters **[2022 (7) KHC 12 : AIR 2022 SC 5634]** , the entitlement of the petitioners for disbursement of higher pension requires reconsideration at the hands of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation in accordance with law. In the said circumstances, this Contempt Case is closed, without prejudice to the right of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation to reconsider the entitlement of the petitioners for disbursement of higher pension, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.8143-44 of 2022 and connected matters **[2022 (7) KHC 12 : AIR 2022 SC 5634]** . Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** AV/25/11 14 Cont.Case (C)No.2091 of 2019 ## **`APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2091/2019`** ## **`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE IA CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN WPC NO.31850 OF 2016, DATED 12.10.2018. ```