High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-08-24Disposed of; directions to reconsider pension c...

K P Babu (deceased) and Others v Union of India and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 41169 OF 2016

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Murali Purushothaman J.
Judgment Date: 2023-08-24
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of directing the competent respondents to reconsider the petitioners’ claims in light of the Supreme Court’s dictum in EPF Organisation and Others v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) SCC online SC 1521, within three months from receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of; directions to reconsider pension claims in light of the Sunil Kumar B decision within three months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K P Babu (deceased)
K K Appukuttan
N C Jacob
K M Markose
K Karthikeyan
P K Jose
C N Soman Nair
T O Mathachan
C B Bhaskaran
V K Thankappan
Sunny T J
P P Jacob
K Bhargavan
M Basheer
M N Jayakumar
M J Sajan
M K Babu
John N J
VASUMATHI (Addl. R19)

Respondents

Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Department of Employment, New Delhi
Employees Provident Fund Organisation represented by the Chief Provident Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, New Delhi
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Kottayam
Hindustan Newsprint Limited represented by its Managing Director

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri R. Sanjith
• Smt. Lekshmi Ramakrishnan
• Smt. C. S. Sindhu Krishnah

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Jagath N.
• Sri Joy Thattil Ittoop
• Sri M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar
• Sri P. Gopinath
• Sri K. John Mathai
• Sri Joson Manaval
• Sri Kuryan Thomas

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C) 41169/2016) is filed by retired employees of Hindustan Newsprint Limited challenging pension computation under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioners seek higher pension based on the average of 12 months’ salary prior to retirement and urge that pension benefits should not be restricted by the pensionable ceiling prescribed in paragraph 11(3) of EPS 1995. They pray for mandamus to confer pension accordingly, to re-compute monthly pension on the actual salary from the date of attaining 58 years, and to permit contributions to EPS above the ceiling where necessary to reflect true remuneration. The petition includes multiple named petitioners and a legal-heir impleaded later. Respondents include Union of India (Secretary, Labour and Employment), EPFO (Chief Provident Commissioner), the Regional PF Commissioner, and Hindustan Newsprint Limited. Counsel for EPFO submits that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) and that the petitioners’ grievances should be considered per that ruling. The court disposes of the petition by directing reconsideration of the claims in light of the Sunil Kumar B judgment within three months.

Provisions of Law Cited

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952Employees Pension Scheme, 1995Paragraph 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners, retirees and subscribers to the Employees’ Provident Fund, challenge pension computation under the EPF Act and EPS 1995, arguing pension must be calculated on the average salary for 12 months immediately before retirement and should not be capped by the ceiling in paragraph 11(3) of EPS 1995. They seek mandamus to confer pension based on pre-notification norms, recomputation of monthly pension on actual salary from age 58, and permission to contribute to EPS beyond ceilings to reflect true remuneration. They contend the statutory scheme mandates adequate pension, and that prior judgments and notifications support higher pension entitlements. The petition also includes a deceased petitioner’s heirs as legal representatives. They request time-bound directions and costs. In essence, they press for restoration of earlier pension norms and full pensionary entitlement consistent with statutory aims and equitable relief.

Contentions of Respondents

The Standing Counsel for EPFO submits that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) and that the petitioners’ grievances should be considered in accordance with that decision. The respondents urge adoption of the Sunil Kumar B directions and request the court to dispose of the petition accordingly, within a structured timeframe. The Government/EPFO position is to align with the Supreme Court ruling rather than grant independent relief beyond that framework.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others	2022 SCC online SC 1521	Positive	The court explicitly relies on and implements the directions from this Supreme Court decision to resolve the petitioner's pension issues, directing reconsideration in line with Sunil Kumar B.

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 P Babu (deceased) 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN THURSDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 2ND BHADRA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 41169 OF 2016** ## **PETITIONERS:** - 1 K P BABU (DECEASED) AGED 59 YEARS S/O.PAPACHAN, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P P O NO KR/KTM/00036015, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, ERUMPAYAM PO, PIN-686605. - 2 K K APPUKUTTAN AGED 60 YEARS AGED 60 YEARS, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P P O NO KR/KTM/00035059,KOLLANGATTUTHARA(PARVATHI NIVAS), PADINJAREKKARA P O, PIN-686146. - 3 N C JACOB AGED 60 YEARS AGED 60 YEARS, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P P O NO KR/KTM/0034382, NEDYORTHI, KARIKODE PO, PIN-686610. - 4 K M MARKOSE AGED 60 YEARS AGED 60 YEARS, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P P O NO KR/KTM/0034851, MADATHIKUNEAL, MULAKULAM P O, PIN686610., - 5 K KARTHIKEYAN AGED 59 YEARS AGED 59 YEARS,HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P P O NO KR/KCH/00093047, KALATHIKUTTIYIL HOUSE, KADUVINAL P O, VELLIKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA 690501. - 6 P K JOSE AGED 59 YEARS AGED 59 YEARS, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED,P P O NO.KR/KTM/00036712, PLANTHADAM HOUSE, ERUMPAYAM P O, PIN-686605. - 7 C N SOMAN NAIR AGED 59 YEARS AGED 59 YEARS, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P.P.O.NO.KR/KTM/00035741, SREEBHAVAN, PERUMPADAVOM P.O, PIN-686665. - 8 T O MATHACHAN AGED 59 YEARS AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P P O NO.KR/KTM/00036962, THACHANNAYIL, ``` WP(C) NO. 41169 OF 2016 ``` ``` 2 ``` CHEMMANANTHUKARA P O, VAIKOM. 9 C B BHASKARAN AGED 59 YEARS AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.K BALAN, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P.P.O.NO.KR/KTM/00035094, CHANDRAMALAYIL HOUSE, MEVELLOR P O, PIN686609. 10 V K THANKAPPAN AGED 60 YEARS AGED 60 YEARS, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P P O NO.KR/KTM/00035720, VADAKKANTEPARAMBIL, MEVELOOR P O, PIN686605. 11 SUNNY T J AGED 57 YEARS AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. T.M.JOSEPH, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P.F.A/C.NO.KR/KTM/0010290/00E/00215, THEKKEPERAYIL, THEKKENADA VAIKOM P O,KOTTAYAM-686141. 12 P P JACOB AGED 57 YEARS AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.POULOSE P O, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P.F.A/C.NO.KR/KTM/0010290/00E0000220, PARAPPILLY HOUSE, SREEMOOLANAGARAM P O, EDANAD, ERNAKULAM-683580 13 K BHARGAVAN AGED 57 YEARS AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUKRISHNAN, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P.F.A/C.NO.KR/KTM/0010290/E/97, KODIVILAPUTHAN VEEDU, AKKAL P O, CHERIYAVELINALLOOR, KOLLAM-691516. 14 M BASHEER AGED 57 YEARS AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED P.F.A/C.NO/KR/KTM/0010290/F/0026, FOUSIAMANZIL, MEVELOOR P O, VELLOR. 15 M N JAYAKUMAR AGED 54 YEARS AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN KUTTY, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P.F ``` WP(C) NO. 41169 OF 2016 ``` ``` 3 ``` A/C.KR/KTM/0010290E/30, MUNDAKAL HOUSE, KAIPPATTUR P O , ARAKUNNAM VIA, ERNAKULAM682313. 16 M.J.SAJAN AGED 52 YEARS AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.M.JOHN, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P F A/C.NO.KR/KTM/0010290/E/119, MANALUVIA HOUSE, KARIMTHOTTUVA P O, KOLLAM-690520. 17 M.K.BABU AGED 52 YEARS AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.M.K.KURIAKOSE, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P.F.A/C.NO.KR/KTM/0010290/00E0000138, MANIYAMPURATH HOUSE, BRAHMAMANGALAM P O, KOTTAYAM 686605. 18 JOHN N J AGED 51 YEARS AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, HINDUSTAN NEWS PRINT LIMITED, P.F.A/C.NO/KR/KTM/0010290/E/153, PULIYAKKALAYIL, IRUPAYAM P O, IRUMPAYAM686605. 19 ADDL. P19. VASUMATHI AGED 59 YEARS W/O. LATE K.P. BABU, RESIDING AT KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, ERUMPAYAM P.O., PIN-686605. (ADDITIONAL R19 IS IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER AS PER THE ORDER DATED 05/10/2020 IN IA 1/2020 IN WPC 41169/2016) BY ADVS. SRI.R.SANJITH R.SANJITH SMT.LEKSHMI RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001. ``` WP(C) NO. 41169 OF 2016 ``` ``` 4 ``` - 2 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI-110066. - 3 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, KOTTAYAM. 4 HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LIMITED NEWSPRINT NAGAR P O, KOTTAYAM-686616, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.JAGATH. N., CGC SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISA SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.JAGATH. N. CGC SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SC--- SMT. NITA. N.S BY ADV.SRI.S.MANU - DSGI **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ``` WP(C) NO. 41169 OF 2016 ``` ``` 5 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- “i) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2 and 3 or such other appropriate authorities under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 to confer them all the pensionary benefits under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, calculated on the basis of average of 12 months salary immediately prior to their retirement/exit from membership of the pension fund, as it was prior to the implementation of Exhibit P1 notification and to complete necessary steps in that regard within a time frame stipulated by this Honourable Court. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2 and 3 to re-compute petitioner's monthly pension in accordance with contribution made to the pension fund and confer the petitioners with such monthly pension based on their actual salary from the date they have attained 58 years, within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honourable Court. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents to revise and enhance the monthly pension of petitioners by permitting them to make contributions, wherever necessary, to the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS) 1995 on the basis of their actual salary exceeding the supposed ceiling limit as granted in Exhibits P1A to P3 Judgments. iv) To pass any other and such other orders as this Honourable Court deem fit to pass in the nature and circumstance of the case. v) To award the cost of this proceedings”. ``` WP(C) NO. 41169 OF 2016 ``` ``` 6 ``` 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. Smt. 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 in **EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others** [2022 SCC online SC 1521] and that the grievance of the ``` 7 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 41169 OF 2016 ``` 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 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** AL/- ``` WP(C) NO. 41169 OF 2016 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## _`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41169/2016`_ ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO GSR 609(E) DTD 22/8/2014 EXHIBIT P1(A)TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENTIN WPC NO 254/2014 EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT WA NO 1362/2014 EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SLP(C0NO 19954/2015 EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 3A SUBMITTED IN CASE AN EMPLOYEE BY THE EMPLOYER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 16/09/2019. ```