High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2023-10-09Disposed of

Cont.Case (C)No.2343 of 2019, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Case / Petition Number:Cont.Case (C)No.2343 of 2019

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Sophy Thomas
Judgment Date: 2023-10-09
Court Decision / Holding: Contempt case disposed of; the court closed the contempt proceedings, noting that the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment (Sunil Kumar B. and connected matters). The EPFO is directed to undertake the reconsideration in accordance with law and the SC judgment, within a defined time, and the order is passed without prejudice to EPFO’s rights to modify the scheme as required by law under Article 142.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Pushparajan N.
Radhakrishnan Thampi S.
Radhakrishnan V.
Rajan B.
Rajan J.
Raju B.
Rajee T.
Rejikumar R.
Sagar V.
Sasibhooshanan D.
Sathyadarman R.
Sethukumaran Pillai J.
Shams A.
Sivaprasad R.

Respondents

M. Ravi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Ramakrishnan
• Smt. Preethi Ramakrishnan (P-212)
• Sri. C. Anil Kumar
• Smt. Asha K. Shenoy
• Sri. Pratap Abraham Varghese

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv Nita N.S

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Contempt of Court Case (C) arises from W.P.(C) No.37041 of 2015 and connected matters. The petitioners—14 named applicants plus others—allege willful disobedience of the High Court’s directions issued on 12 October 2018 in the aforesaid writ petition and connected matters, concerning pension rights under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the pension scheme amendments that followed. The matter traces to the implementation of the 2014 amendments (G.S.R. 609(E)) to the pension scheme and the interpretation of paragraphs 11(3) and 11(4) of the pension scheme (pre- and post-amendment), including transfer of funds for exempted establishments and eligibility for higher pension. The petitioners rely on RC Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, 2018, 14 SCC 809, to support their entitlement to exercise options, and on the Supreme Court’s later Sunil Kumar B. decision (AIR 2022 SC 5634) which upheld the legal validity of the 2014 amendments and laid down directions for implementation. The High Court notes that the Apex Court’s 2022 judgment requires reconsideration of petitioners’ entitlements by the EPFO. The matter concludes with the contempt petition being closed, while reserving the EPFO’s right to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlements in light of the Supreme Court judgment, under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952Paragraph 11(3) of the Pension Scheme (pre-amendment)Paragraph 11(4) of the Pension Scheme (post-amendment)G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 August 2014Article 142 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ultra vires
Read down (interpretation)
Article 142 of the Constitution of India – exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contended that the directions in the High Court's 12 October 2018 judgment were willfully disobeyed by the Respondent EPFO, particularly regarding the pension reforms effected by the 2014 amendment and the associated para 11(3)/(4) provisions of the pension scheme. They argued that the amendments and the interpretive directions were to be applied in a manner that preserves the options of employees who were in service before 1 September 2014, ensures transfer of funds as directed, and grants higher pension where applicable. They relied on the decision in RC Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2018) 14 SCC 809 to underscore the crystallization of preexisting options and on the Supreme Court’s later Sunil Kumar B. judgment to support the validity of the amended scheme and the need to implement its directions. The petitioners invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to justify timely relief and urged the High Court to hold EPFO in contempt for noncompliance until the mandated remedies are implemented. They also contend that contempt is the proper remedy to enforce compliance with court orders and secure pension beneficiaries’ entitlements.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued that there was no willful disobedience and that the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment requires reconsideration of the petitioners’ entitlements. EPFO must undertake a lawful, structured process to re-examine beneficiaries’ status and ensure compliance with the amended scheme. They contend that the 2014 amendments have been validated by the Supreme Court and that any adjustments must be conducted within the statutory framework of the 1952 Act. They urged closure of the contempt petition, directing EPFO to complete the exercise within a reasonable time and to notify petitioners of the outcome. The respondents emphasize that the Supreme Court’s decision requires reconsideration of entitlements rather than automatic disbursement of higher pension, and that EPFO will carry out the necessary exercise as per law and the Court’s directions.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
R.C. Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others	[(2018) 14 SCC 809]	Positive	Cited to support the entitlement to options under para 11(3)/(4) of the pension scheme and the pre/post-amendment interpretations, which the Court acknowledges as controlling guidance.
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B.	AIR 2022 SC 5634	Positive	SC held the 2014 notification/legal and valid and laid down directions subsequently read down by this Court; the judgment is applied to direct EPFO to reconsider entitlements.

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.2343 of 2019, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam 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 MRS.JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS`** ``` MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 17TH ASWINA, 1945 CON.CASE(C) NO. 2343 OF 2019 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.10.2018 IN WP(C)NO.37041/2015 ``` ``` OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ``` PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, 30, ``` ``` 36, 40, 45 & 51: ``` - **`1 PUSHPARAJAN N., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.NANU.K., RESIDING AT LUKKATTIL HOUSE, AMPIPOYKA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM, RETIRED SEMI SKILLED WORKER, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** - **`2 RADHAKRISHNAN THAMPI.S., AGED 59 YEARS S/O.SADASIVAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SREE VALLABHA, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, RETIRED SPECIAL SKILLED WORKER, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** - **`3 RADHAKRISHNAN.V., AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.VISWANATHAN, RESIDING AT KRISHNA, EDANADU P.O., CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM, RETIRED SKILLED WORKER, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** - **`4 RAJAN.B., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT R.V.NIVAS, PANKOTTUKONAM, MANCHAVILAKOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RETIRED SECURITY GUARD GRADE 1 ON SL. GRADE, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** - **`5 RAJAN J., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PANAYAMKOTTU KIZHAKKEKARA PUTHENVEEDU, KANJIRACODE, KUNDARA, KOLLAM, RETIRED SPECIAL SKILLED WORKER, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB`** 2 Cont.Case (C)No.2343 of 2019 ``` NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501. ``` - **`6 RAJU B., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.BHARGAVAN, RESIDING AT MANGALASSERIL VEEDU, PUTTANI MUKKU, KERALAPURAM, CHANDANATHOPE P.O., KOLLAM, RETIRED UNSKILLED WORKER GRADE II, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** - **`7 RAJEE T., AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT VALIAVEETTIL HOUSE, MAHADEVIKADU P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, RETIRED SKILLED WORKER, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** - **`8 REJIKUMAR R., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT REVATHY, EARAM, KARAMCODE P.O., CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM, RETIRED SPECIAL SKILLED WORKER, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** - **`9 SAGAR V., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.VASUKUTTY, RESIDING AT PUTHAZHAYKOM, MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM, RETIRED SPECIAL SKILLED WORKER ON CHARGE HAND GRADE, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** - **`10 SASIBHOOSHANAN D., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.DIVAKARAN K., SREE GURU, CHEMMANNUVILA, VADACODE, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O., KOLLAM, RETIRED DRAUGHTSMAN GRADE I, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** - **`11 SATHYADHARMAN R., AGED 59 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT KEERTHI, NEDUMON CAVE P.O., KOLLAM, RETIRED CHARGEHAND, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** - **`12 SETHUKUMARAN PILLAI J., AGED 60 YEARS S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT KURUMPELIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM, RETIRED SEMI-SKILLED WORKER, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501.`** 3 Cont.Case (C)No.2343 of 2019 ``` 13 SHAMS A., AGED 61 YEARS, ALIYARU KUNJU, RESIDING AT SHAN MANZIL, ELIPPAKULAM P.O., PALLICKAL, KOLLAM, RETIRED SKILLED WORKER, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501. ``` ``` 14 SIVAPRASAD.R., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.K.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT KAIPALLIL VEEDU, KERALAPURAM, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM, RETIRED SPECIAL SKILLED WORKER ON CHARGEHAND GRADE, KERALA ELECTRICALS AND ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, KUNDARA P.O., PB NO.8, KOLLAM-691 501. ``` ``` BY ADVS.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/4[TH] RESPONDENT:`** ``` M.RAVI, AGE AND FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, PONNAMMA CHAMBERS, PARAMESWAR NAGAR, KOLLAM-691 001. ``` ``` BY ADV NITA N.S ``` ``` THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 Cont.Case (C)No.2343 of 2019 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioners, who are petitioners 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, 30, 36, 40, 45 & 51 in W.P.(C)No.37041 of 2015, 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 the 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: 5 Cont.Case (C)No.2343 of 2019 ## “44. We accordingly hold and direct:- (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 6 Cont.Case (C)No.2343 of 2019 provide for any cut-off date and thus those members shall 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 preamended 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 7 Cont.Case (C)No.2343 of 2019 contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultra 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 8 Cont.Case (C)No.2343 of 2019 ## Organisation, for the respondent. 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 respondent 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/- **SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE** AV/16/10