Judgements/High Court of Kerala/R. Vijayakumariamama Manivarnam v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, CMS College Road, Kottayam-686001; The Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its General Manager, District Co-operative Bank Buildings, Kottayam-686001; The Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, represented by its Secretary, P.B.No.85, Kala Nivas, TC.No.27/156, 157, Chinmaya Lane, Kunnumpuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695001; The Kerala Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its CEO, Cobank Towers, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram-695033 (Addl.R4 impleaded as per order dated 25.03.2020 in IA 1/20 in W.P.(C) 29567/12)

High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-09-06Writ petition disposed of with directions as no...

R. Vijayakumariamama Manivarnam v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, CMS College Road, Kottayam-686001; The Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its General Manager, District Co-operative Bank Buildings, Kottayam-686001; The Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, represented by its Secretary, P.B.No.85, Kala Nivas, TC.No.27/156, 157, Chinmaya Lane, Kunnumpuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695001; The Kerala Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its CEO, Cobank Towers, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram-695033 (Addl.R4 impleaded as per order dated 25.03.2020 in IA 1/20 in W.P.(C) 29567/12)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 29567 of 2012

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2021-09-06
Court Decision / Holding: Disposition: The writ petition is disposed of by directing the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board to return the amount in question to the petitioner’s EPF account within one month from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; upon receipt, the EPFO shall resume disbursement of the petitioner’s pension as before and clear the arrears up to September 2021 within another one month. If non-compliance occurs, the petitioner may file an appropriate revival application for contempt proceedings under constitutional provisions.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions as noted above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

R.VIJAYAKUMARIAMMA MANIVARNAM

Respondents

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, CMS College Road, Kottayam-686001
The Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its General Manager, District Co-operative Bank Buildings, Kottayam-686001
The Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, represented by its Secretary, P.B.No.85, Kala Nivas, TC.No.27/156, 157, Chinmaya Lane, KUNNUMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
The Kerala Co-operative Bank Ltd. represented by its CEO, Cobank Towers, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN 695033 (Addl.R4 impleaded)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri V.G. Arun
• Sri T.R. Harikumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Joy Thattil Itoop
• Sri T.A. Shaji (Sr.)
• Sri Gilbert George Correya
• Sri Athul Shaji
• Sri M. Sasindran

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, R. Vijayakumariamamma Manivarnam, a former Branch Manager of the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank, retired in 2008 and started receiving pension from 2009. From June 2011, pension payments stopped after being informed that Rs. 7.5 lakh plus 12% interest should be deposited with the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board under the Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme. Petitioner approached the court seeking relief, and the matter traces a complex history involving exemption debates under the Employees Provident Fund Act (EPF Act) and the applicability of the EPF scheme versus pension schemes for cooperative banks. The Division Bench previously held that exemptions could apply to individuals, but a subsequent review petition—cited as Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board (2016 (5) KHC 414)—held that exemptions to individuals would contravene the law unless exemptions were granted to establishments. The present judgment disposes of the petition by directing the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board to refund the petitioner’s amount within one month, with the EPFO continuing pension disbursement and arrears up to September 2021 to be cleared within a further month, while preserving the rights to pursue revival if non-compliance occurs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 17C of the Employees Provident Fund Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel contends that the dispute is governed by the Division Bench’s earlier judgment and that, in the review petition, it was indicated that exemptions under the Employees Provident Fund Act would apply to establishments rather than individuals. The matter relies on the pending Supreme Court proceedings and the 2016 Division Bench decision in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board (2016 (5) KHC 414), which held that granting exemptions to individuals runs contrary to law. Until establishments are exempted, pension benefits should continue under EPF and associated schemes; substantial amounts were improperly remitted to the Pension Board, and refund to the EPFO is sought to restore pension continuity. The petition seeks relief to ensure continued pension disbursal and to recover funds deposited with the Pension Board using the established statutory framework.

Contentions of Respondents

The EPFO’s counsel argues that refunds cannot be ordered without the petitioner’s consent, and that correspondence did not yield a resolution; the Pension Board argues that the petitioner did not consent to the transfer/adjustment and that remittance of the value in the petitioner’s account to EPF would be possible only upon consent; however, they claim the department would not object to transferring the amount to EPF and continuing pension disbursal as before. The overall position is that exemption issues require constitutional and statutory clarity, and until that happens, EPF continues to govern pension disbursement for the petitioner.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, Thiruvananthapuram	2016 (5) KHC 414	Positive	The judgment cites and follows the decision in 2016 (5) KHC 414, which held that exemptions granted to individuals without establishing exemption for the establishment are contrary to law; the present Court uses this to reaffirm that EPF and related pension schemes survive until establishment exemptions are granted.

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 R. Vijayakumariamama Manivarnam v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, CMS College Road, Kottayam-686001; The Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its General Manager, District Co-operative Bank Buildings, Kottayam-686001; The Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, represented by its Secretary, P.B.No.85, Kala Nivas, TC.No.27/156, 157, Chinmaya Lane, Kunnumpuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695001; The Kerala Co-operative Bank Ltd., represented by its CEO, Cobank Towers, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram-695033 (Addl.R4 impleaded as per order dated 25.03.2020 in IA 1/20 in W.P.(C) 29567/12) 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 AMIT RAWAL** **MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 15TH BHADRA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 29567 OF 2012** ## **PETITIONER/S:** R.VIJAYAKUMARIAMMA MANIVARNAM, CHEMMANATTUKARA P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CMS COLLEGE ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2 THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT COOPERATIVE BANK BUILDINGS, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3 THE KERALA STTE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.B.NO.85, KALA NIVAS, T.C.NO.27/156, 157, CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 4 ADDL.R4. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO, COBANK TOWERS, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN695 033. ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.03.2020 IN IA 1/20 IN W.P.(C) 29567/12. **WP(C) NO. 29567 OF 2012** -2- BY ADVS. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, SC, EPF ORGANISATION SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.ATHUL SHAJI, SC, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD. SRI.M.SASINDRAN, SC, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 29567 OF 2012** -3- ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 6[th] day of September, 2021) Petitioner while working as a Branch Manager in Kottayam District Co-operative Bank 2[nd] respondent retired on 31.7.2008. At the relevant point of time, the employees of the Bank were covered by the Scheme introduced by Employees Provident Fund Scheme, of which he was a member. From 2009 onwards, the petitioner had been receiving pension, but with effect from June 2011, he did not receive any pension as he was informed that a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- along with 12% interest was to be deposited to the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, i.e., Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme introduced for the employees of State and District Co-operative Banks. In this regard, a representation dated 28.5.2012 Ext.P2 was submitted to the first respondent. The first respondent, vide communication dated 20.7.2012 (Ext.P3) informed that the pension fund contribution remitted by the members of Kottayam District Co-operative Bank was transferred to Co-operative Pension Board. The learned counsel **WP(C) NO. 29567 OF 2012** -4- appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the controversy in this case is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court and partially reviewed on account of the fact that the sanction would not apply to the individuals but to the establishment. Earlier the exemption under Section 17C of the Employees Provident Fund Act was granted, but challenge against the same succeeded and the Writ Appeal preferred against the said matter is also pending before the Supreme Court. The Division Bench of this Court decided the controversy, which entailed into filing of the Review petition which was ordered to be heard and decided. In the decision of the Division Bench in Review Petition No.992 of 2012 and other connected cases, reported in **Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board, Thiruvananthapuram** (2016 (5) KHC 414), it was held that finding of the Division Bench given in the judgment sought to be reviewed that exemption would be applied to the employees actually run contrary to the provisions of law, but unless and until exemption is granted to the **WP(C) NO. 29567 OF 2012** -5- establishment the employees of the Co-operative Bank will continue to draw the pension from Employees Provident Fund, leaving thereby that the provisions of the EPF Act and the Pension Schemes formulated thereunder will survive. 2. The learned counsel for the Employees Provident Fund submitted that numerous letters had been written to the Pension Board for refund of the amount to the EPF inadvertently transferred to the EPF account in order to continue payment of the amount of pension to the petitioner, but did not yield any result. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Employees Pension Board submitted that the petitioner had not given any consent and therefore, the alleged demand as averred in the Writ Petition is wholly baseless. Until and unless option was given the amount so referred to could not have been calculated and asked to deposit for the purpose of payment of the pension to the petitioner. But the department would not be averse in remitting the amount pertaining to the account of the petitioner to EPF and **WP(C) NO. 29567 OF 2012** -6- ## further disbursement of the pension. 4. I have the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The Division Bench of this court held earlier that exemption under Employees Provident Fund Act can apply to the individuals but in the Review petition in the judgment in **Employees Provident Fund Organisation** (supra) held to the contrary that until and unless the establishments are not granted exemption, the applicability of EPF scheme and other payment schemes would survive. In the said case, in view of the fact that the matter is pending before the supreme court without any stay, so long as this establishment is not exempted, Employees Provident Fund Organisation is justified in requesting Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board to refund the amount reserved in the account of the petitioner for onward disbursement of pension which he was drawing till May/June 2011. Accordingly, I dispose of the Writ petition by issuing direction to Co-operative Employees Pension Board to return the amount of the petitioner within a period of one **WP(C) NO. 29567 OF 2012** month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. On receipt of the same, the Employees Provident Fund Organisation would continue to disburse the pension to the petitioner, which the petitioner was drawing earlier and clear the arrears upto the month of September 2021 within another period of one month. In case of non-compliance of the direction, the petitioner is at liberty to move appropriate application for revival of the Writ Petition, instead of filing Contempt Petition so that this Court can take cognizance as per the statutory provisions of the Constitution of India. Sd/AMIT RAWAL, Judge dl **WP(C) NO. 29567 OF 2012** -8- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29567/2012** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION ORDER NO.KR/KTM/PENSION/09/15953 DATED 05-012009 SANCTIONED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.05.2012. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.KR/KTM/PEN CELL 1(3) PPO 19140/2012 DATED 20.07.2012 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 01.08.2012.