High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-09-18Disposed of

K. KUHIRAMAN and others v Union of India and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.6523 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sathish Ninan
Judgment Date: 2023-09-18
Court Decision / Holding: The petition is disposed of directing the competent among the respondents to re-consider the petitioners’ claims in light of the Supreme Court dictum in EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) SCC online 1521, and to do so within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.KUHIRAMAN
PADMANABHAN K. P.
MANOHARAN K
SASIDHARAN P
BALAKRISHNAN C. H
K. M. MOHANAN
K. SAKUNTHALA
RADHAKRISHNAN K
VASU K
M. C. BALAJI
MOHANA KUMAR R
P. G. PREMACHANDRAN
RAVEENDRAN NAIR V
R. KESAVARAJU
S. VASUMATHY AMMA
GANESHAN P
C. BALAKRISHNAN
K. MOHANAN
B. SALILAN
A. ABDUL SALAM
K. VIKRAMAN PILLAI
T. K. VINOD KUMAR
P. R. VENUGOPALAN
T. N. SUDHAKARAN NAIR

Respondents

UNION OF INDIA, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Shram Sakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110 001
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, represented by its Chief Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, 14, Bhikaji Cama Place, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 066
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004
KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, Cobank Towers, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Respondents

• SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
• SMT.NITA N.S

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition, filed by twenty-four retired employees of the 4th respondent establishment, seeks higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioners contend that pension must be calculated on actual contributions and salary drawn, rather than the maximum pensionable salary prescribed in para 11(3) of the Pension Scheme, and they urge mandamus to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to collect the difference in pension contributions based on actual contributions from joining to date. They also seek a directive to the 4th respondent to furnish joint consent for higher option, enabling higher pension. The respondents, through counsel, contend that the issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) SCC online SC 1521, and that the petition should be disposed in accordance with those directions. The High Court, after considering the submissions, disposed of the petition by directing the competent respondents to re-consider the claims in light of the Supreme Court dictum, taking into account the bank's status, within three months from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. This decision does not decide the merits but provides a time-bound direction for re-evaluation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995Proviso to Clause 1.11(3) of the Pension Scheme

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend entitlement to higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, arguing that pension must be computed on actual salary drawn and actual contributions remitted, not restricted to the maximum pensionable salary under para 11(3). They seek mandamus to direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to collect the difference in contributions and to obtain the 4th respondent’s consent for a higher option.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) SCC online 1521, and the petition should be disposed as per those directions, with reconsideration of the claims in light of the Court’s dictum and the bank’s status.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others	2022 SCC online SC 1521	Positive	Cited to indicate that the issue has been settled in the Supreme Court and directions therein should govern reconsideration of the petitioners’ claims.

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 K. KUHIRAMAN 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.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 27TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 6523 OF 2020`** ## **`PETITIONERS:`** |`1`|`K.KUHIRAMAN, AGED 63 YEARS,`| |---|---| ||`S/O. KANNAN M., 'USHUS', KANDAN HOUSE,`| ||`KANNAPILAVU, NANICHERY P. O., KANNUR - 670 563.`| |`2`|`PADMANABHAN K. P., AGED 69 YEARS`| ||`S/O. KRISHNAN K. P., KIZHEKKE PURAKKAL HOUSE,`| ||`POOKIPARAMBA, VALAKULAM P. O.,`| ||`MALAPPURAM - 676 508.`| |`3`|`MANOHARAN K, AGED 65 YEARS`| ||`S/O. KUNHAMBU P. M., CHERIKKAL,`| ||`PINARAYI P. O., KANNUR - 670 741.`| |`4`|`SASIDHARAN P, AGED 58 YEARS`| ||`S/O. KUNHAKURUP, MUDAKKANARI HOUSE,`| ||`PANTHEERAMKAVU P. O., KOZHIKODE - 673 019.`| |`5`|`BALAKRISHNAN C. H, AGED 69 YEARS`| ||`S/O. KUNHAN C. H. 'CHAITHANYA', CHAKKALAKUTH,`| ||`NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 329.`| |`6`|`K. M. MOHANAN, AGED 72 YEARS`| ||`S/O. K. M. APPU, 'MIDHILA', KUNDUPARAMBA,`| ||`EDAKKAD P. O., KOZHIKODE - 673 005.`| |`7`|`K. SAKUNTHALA, AGED 63 YEARS`| ||`D/O. V. K. KRISHNAN NAIR, 'SAKETHAM',`| ||`WEST MAMPETTA, MANNASSERY P. O.,`| ||`MUKKAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 602.`| |`8`|`RADHAKRISHNAN K, AGED 66 YEARS`| ||`S/O. CHEKKU, MATTILAYIMMAL HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBA`| ||`P. O., KODUVALLY (VIA), KOZHIKODE - 673 572.`| `WP(C) No.6523 of 2020` -: 2 :- - `9 VASU K, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. KANDAN K. SARADA NIVAS, PARUTHEENTE CHUATTIL, MANIPURAM P. O., KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE - 63 572` - `10 M. C. BALAJI, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. N. CHELLAPPAN, 'KAILAS', KANJAVELY P. O., KOLLAM - 697 602.` - `11 MOHANA KUMAR R, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, PUNARIL VEEDU, TC 16/1196, JAGATHY, KANNETTUMUKKU, THYCAUD P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.` - `12 P. G. PREMACHANDRAN, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. K. GOPALAN NAIR, MOOZHIYIL VEEDU, NEAR GOVT. COLLEGE, NEDUMANGAD P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 541.` - `13 RAVEENDRAN NAIR V, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. VELAPPAN NAIR, T. C. 20/319, KIZHAKKEKATH, MELETH VEEDU, MELAVANNOOR P. O., KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002` - `14 R. KESAVARAJU, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. KESAVARU, KESAVAMANGALAM, LEKSHMI NAGAR, OORUTTUKALA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 121.` - `15 S. VASUMATHY AMMA, AGED 60 YEARS D/O. N. RAMAN PILLA, VASUMATHY BHAVAN, T. C. 50/1126-2, THALIYIL, KARAMANA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 002.` - `16 GANESHAN P, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. PARAMESWARAN, GANESH BHAVAN, TC 23/571, VALIYASALAI, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 036.` - `17 C. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. CHAMI, KRISHNA SHYLAM, VRAP 15, VELLAMKETTU VILA, NEMOM P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 020.` ``` 18K. MOHANAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O. N. KUTTAN, EZHAMKUZHI VEEDU, JRA 225, T. C. 8/303, THIRUMALA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 006. ``` ``` WP(C) No.6523 of 2020 ``` -: 3 :- - `19 B. SALILAN, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.K. BHASKARAN, MARANGATTU HOUSE, GOVINDAMUTTOM P. O., PUTHUPPALLY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 690 527.` - `20 A. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. K. ABOOBACKER KUNJU, NIZA NIVAZ, KRISHNAPURAM P. O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 690 533.` - `21 K. VIKRAMAN PILLAI, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. G. GOPALA PILLAI, 'GOKULAM', PERINAD P. O., KOLLAM - 691 601.` - `22 T. K. VINOD KUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. T. K. KARTHIKAYAN, SUJATHA BHAVAN, EAST PANDYKUDY, KOCHI - 682 002.` - `23 P. R. VENUGOPALAN, AGED 69 YEARS S/O. P. S. RAMAN NAIR,, 'MEGHASRI', ARSRA 34, ASOKA ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.` - `24 T. N. SUDHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, 'ASWATHY', PUTHALATHU TEMPLE ROAD, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM - 683 104. BY ADVS. A.K.PREETHA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHRAM SAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001.` - `2 EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATON, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 066.` ``` WP(C) No.6523 of 2020 ``` -: 4 :- - `3 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.` - `4 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, COBANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SMT.NITA N.S, SC FOR EPFO` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ## **`Sathish Ninan, J. ============================== WP(C) No.6523 of 2020 ========================== Dated this the 18[th] day of September, 2023`** ## **`JUDGMENT`** ``` This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- ``` _“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to collect difference in pension contribution towards the EPF Pension Scheme account of the petitioners’ on the basis of actual contributions made towards the P.F account by them and their employer, in terms of proviso to C1.11(3) of the pension scheme from the date of joining the pension scheme._ _ii) to direct the 4[th] respondent to furnish joint application expressing consent for higher option. iii) declare that petitioners’ are entitled to reckon pension contribution towards the EPF Pension Scheme on the basis of actual salary drawn and contribution remitted towards their P.F account in terms of proviso to C1.11(3) of the pension scheme from the respective date of their joining the pension scheme.”_ ``` WP(C) No.6523 of 2020 ``` -: 2 :- ``` 2. The petitioners are retired employees of the 4[th] respondent establishment. They are subscribers of Employees’ Provident Fund. According to the petitioners, they are entitled for higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as per the option exercised by them. It is their case that the pension has to be paid without limiting the amount to the maximum pensionable salary prescribed in paragraph 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. ``` ``` 3. Adv.Nita N.S, the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation submits that the question raised in the writ petition is now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inEPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others [2022 SCC online SC 1521] and ``` ``` WP(C) No.6523 of 2020 ``` -: 3 :- ``` that the grievance of the petitioners raised in this writ petition will be considered in accordance with the directions therein. ``` ``` In the light of the said submission, 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 dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision cited above and taking into account the status of the Bank, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ``` ``` Sd/- Sathish Ninan, Judge ``` ``` amk ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6523/2020`** ``` PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS : ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1SERVICE AND PROVIDENT FUND PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH PETITIONER. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 17TH PETITIONER. ```