N. Padmanabhan and others v Union of India and others
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Murali Purushothaman
- Judgment Date
- 2023-08-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed of directing the competent among the respondents to re-consider the claims of the petitioners in light of the Supreme Court's dictum in EPF Organisation and Another 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 re-consider the petitioners' claims consistent with the Supreme Court dictum within three months of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- N. Padmanabhan
- P. Assain
- P. Manoharan
- Divakaran B.K.
- Devadasan M.T.
- Muhammed Jaleel V.T.
- Ashokan U. Sreenidhi
- Saju K.C.
- A.P. Velayudhan
- P.P. Viswanathan
- K. Baburaj
- Abdul Majeed K.P.
- Abdul Rasheed T.K.
- K. Abdul Majeed
- A.E. Nazeer
- M.K. Abdul Razaq
- Abdul Rahiman K.
- C.K. Abdul Jabbar
- Moideen Kutty K.P.
- Babu M.J.
- Abdul Razack P.A.
- T.V. Chandrasekharan Gokulam
- M. Suresh Kumar
- M.M. Yoosuf Mannarthottathil
- Zubair K.V.
- A.P. Abubacker
- Abdussamad Y.
- Mohammed Asraff K.P.
- Pradeep Kumar C.P.
Respondents
- Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Shram Sashakti Bhavan, Raisina Hill, New Delhi-110001
- Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, New Delhi-110066
- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Sub Regional Office, Kochi-682017
- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Sub Regional Office, Trivandrum-695004
- Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Sub Regional Office, Kozhikode-673006
- Madhyamam Daily (Ideal Publication Trust), Vellumadukun, Kozhikode-673012
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • V.V. Nandagopal Nambi ar
- • Smti. Smitha (EZHUPUNNA)
- • Dr. Dheeraj Krishnan Perot
- • Smti. Chitra Johnson
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. B. Pramod, CGC
- • Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara, SC, EPF Org.
- • Sri. Balram S.A.
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition, filed in the Kerala High Court, is by 29 retired employees (petitioners) of the 6th respondent, Madhyamam Daily (Ideal Publication Trust), who seek higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, claiming entitlement under the option exercised by them. They contend that pensionable salary must be computed on the average monthly pay drawn during the contributory period in the 12 months preceding their exit from the Employees’ Pension Fund, and that 8 1/3% of the full EPF contribution made by the 6th respondent should be taken into account without artificial wage ceilings. They pray for a mandamus directing the respondents (EPFO and sub-offices) to re-fix pension, pay arrears, and provide revised pension in accordance with the pre-amended paragraph 11 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. They rely on Ext P2, a judgment dated 12/10/2018 in WP(C) No.13120/2015, which is relied upon to support higher benefits, and seek entitlement to the benefits conferred by this line of authority. The respondents’ counsel counters that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022), and requests disposal with directions. The court disposes the petition, directing the competent respondents to re-consider the petitioners’ claims in light of the Supreme Court dictum within three months of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend 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 must be calculated by considering the average monthly pay drawn during the contributory period within the 12 months preceding exit, and by including 8 1/3% of the full EPF contribution made by the 6th respondent. They seek mandamus to direct respondents 2–5 to recalculate and fix pension, pay arrears, and provide revised pension in terms of the pre-amended paragraph 11 of the EPS, 1995. They rely on Ext P2 (12/10/2018) judgment (WP(C) No.13120/2015) to support higher pension.
Contentions of Respondents
The Advocate for the EPFO submits that the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) and that the petition should be resolved in accordance with that decision; hence the petition is disposed of directing re-consideration of the claims in the light of the Supreme Court dicta within three months from receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others | 2022 SCC Online SC 1521 | Positive | The court states that the issue is settled by this Supreme Court decision and directs its application in reconsidering the petition. |
| WP(C) No.13120/2015; ILR 2019(1) Ker 614 | WP(C).No.13120 of 2015; ILR 2019(1) Ker 614 | Mentioned Only | Exhibit P2 cites this earlier Kerala High Court judgment; it is referenced but not discussed or overruled in the present judgment. |
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 N. Padmanabhan 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.