Jaya Kumar V. S/O. Velayudhan 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 by directing the competent among the respondents to re-consider the petitioners’ claims in the light of the Supreme Court’s dictum 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 reconsider the petitioners’ pension claims in light of the Supreme Court’s Sunil Kumar B dictum within three months from receipt of this judgment.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- JAYA KUMAR V. S/O. VELAYUDHAN
- HAREENDRA NATHAN M.V.
- RAJAGOPALAN P.
- K.K SURENDRAN
- PADMANABHAN NAMBUDIRI P.
- JYOTHISH K.R.
- BABURAJ R.
- GEORGE CHERIAN
- RAJAN R.
- M.S KRISHNAN
- REGHU T.N.
- GOPIRAJAN P.G.
- T.D. JOSEPH
- MURALEEDHARAN NAIR P.N.
- ABDUL HAKKIM
- K. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI
- KURIAN JOSEPH
- MATHEW P.K.
- P.N. SOMASEKHARAN NAIR
- MOLLYKUTTY DAREES
- K.J. JOSEPH
- NADUVATTOM SATHYASEELAN
- JOSEPH P.A.
- MARIAN GEORGE
- JOY THOMAS
- JAMES THOMAS K.
- RAJU PETER
- M.A. PAUL
- SANIL P. THOMAS
Respondents
- UNION OF INDIA, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram SaktI Bhavan, RAFFI Marg, New Delhi – 110 001
- THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, New Delhi – 100 066
- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOCHI – 682 017
- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM – 695 004
- THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE – 673 006
- KERALA KAUMUDI, KAUMUDI BUILDING, KAUMUDI NAGAR, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 024
- MANAGALAM PUBLICATIONS (I) PVT. LTD., MANGALAM COMPLEX, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM – 686 006
- RASHTRA DEEPIKA LIMITED, OPP. NORTH RAILWAY STATION, HAJI K C M MATHER ROAD, ERNAKULAM – 682 018
- MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD., HEAD OFFICE AT MANORAMA JUNCTION, K. K ROAD, KOTTYAM – 686 001
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • SRI. V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR
- • SMT. SMITHA K.P
- • SRI. DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT
- • SMT. CHITRA JOHNSON
Counsels for Respondents
- • SRI. P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
- • DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA
- • SRI. V.KRISHNA MENON
- • SRI. JOMY GEORGE
- • SRI. MILLU DANDAPANI
- • SMT. P.VIJAYAMMA
- • SRI. DEEPAK MOHAN
- • SMT. J.SURYA
- • SRI. R.PADMARAJ
- • SRI. RISHAB S.
- • SMT. CHITRA N. DAS
Case Synopsis & Summary
Petitioners, a group of 29 retired employees of the Employees’ Provident Fund establishments, challenge the computation of pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. They contend that pension must be fixed on the average monthly pay drawn during the 12 months immediately preceding retirement and must include 8 1/3% of the full contribution made by the employers in respect of them, without applying any artificial wage ceiling prescribed by the pension scheme. The reliefs sought include (i) a mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to re-fix pension on that basis; (ii) arrears and revised pension after re-fixation; and (iii) a declaration that they are entitled to the benefits conferred by Ext.P2 judgment. Respondents 2–5 (EPFO) submit that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022), and the petition should be decided in light of those directions. The High Court, noting the Supreme Court ruling, disposes of the petition by directing the competent authorities to reconsider the petitioners’ claims in light of the Sunil Kumar B dictum within three months from receipt of this judgment. Appendix lists petitioners’ and respondents’ exhibits; the judgment underscores applying the Supreme Court’s directives for pension computation under the relevant schemes.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that they are entitled to higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as per the option exercised by them, and that pension should be paid without being limited to the maximum pensionable salary prescribed in para 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. They seek (i) re-fixation of pension on the basis of average pay for 12 months preceding exit; (ii) arrears and revision after re-fixation; and (iii) declaration of entitlement to Ext.P2 benefits.
Contentions of Respondents
The EPFO counsel submits that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022), and the petition should be disposed of in accordance with that decision; the petition should be decided by applying the directions issued by the Supreme Court.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others | 2022 SCC Online SC 1521 | Positive | Supreme Court decision cited and followed; provides the governing guidance for pension calculation, which the Kerala High Court applies to direct reconsideration of the petitioners’ claims. |
| WPC 13120/2015 ILR 2019 (1) Ker 614 | ILR 2019 (1) Ker 614 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit P2 comprises a prior Kerala High Court judgment; cited as a referenced decision and part of the petition exhibits rather than as binding precedent in the current ruling. |
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 Jaya Kumar V. S/O. Velayudhan 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.