High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of; directs respondents to reconsider ...

Shaji T.S. and others v Union of India and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 27482 OF 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Basant Balaji
Judgment Date
2023-11-07
Court Decision / Holding
Disposed of by directing the competent among the respondents to re-consider the petitioners’ claims in light of the Supreme Court’s directions in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B and Others, 2022, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and to apply the relevant precedents (P. Sasikumar ILR 2019 Ker. 614 and RC Gupta SCC 809) accordingly.
Final Disposition
Disposed of; directs respondents to reconsider the petitioners’ claims in light of Supreme Court directions within six months, applying earlier precedents as applicable.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • SHAJI T.S.
  • VENKITACHALAM V.
  • ABDUL SATHAR K.M.
  • ABDUL SALAM P.A
  • P.V.SUDHAKARAN
  • SATHYAMOORTHY S.
  • NARAYANAN KUTTY P.
  • JUSTIN MAXY K.G.
  • PAULOSE T.
  • GEORGE JOSEPH
  • JOGGY JACOB
  • K.NANDA KUMAR
  • HARIDAS N.K.
  • ABDUL SALAM E.
  • THOMAS V.O.
  • M.SUKU
  • SALIM K.D.
  • MOHAN RAJAN V.
  • SANKARANKUTTY K.
  • RADHAKRISHNAN A.N.
  • GAGANAN K.K.
  • P.ACHUTHANKUTTY

Respondents

  • Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Department of Employment, New Delhi-110001
  • Employees Provident Fund Organization, represented by the Chief Provident Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14, Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi-110066
  • Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, The Employees Provident Fund Organization, 37, Royapettah High Road, Opposite Swagat Hotel, Chennai-600014
  • Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kerala-682017
  • Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Fort Road, Kannur-670001
  • Carborundum Universal Limited, Parry House, 43, Moore Street, Chennai-600001, represented by its President
  • Carborundum Universal Limited, Electro Minerals Division, P.B. No.1, Kalamassery Development Plot PO, Kochi-683104, India, represented by its Vice President
  • Carborundum Universal Limited, Electro Minerals Division, Nalukettu P.O., Koratti, Thrissur-650308, represented by its Unit Head

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • R. SANJITH

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN
  • • CGC SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL
  • • SC, P.F.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petition concerns 22 retirees of Carborundum Universal Limited seeking mandamus relief to ensure proper pension processing under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioners contend that they submitted joint option forms (Exhibits P1–P22) in coordination with their employer, but respondents 2–5 have failed to process these options or take action. They seek mandamus directing processing of the joint options and computation of monthly pension in proportion to the last drawn actual salary prior to retirement, as per the dicta in P. Sasikumar v. Union of India and Others (ILR 2019 Ker. 614) and RC Gupta v. EPFO (2018) SCC 809, and in light of the Supreme Court’s directions. They also request mandamus directing respondents to grant pension benefits under EPS 1995 based on the average of the preceding 12 months’ salary. The respondents include the Union of India (Ministry of Labour and Employment), EPFO, and various Regional PF Commissioners, along with Carborundum Universal Limited units. The Court cites EPF Organisation and Others v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) SCC Online SC 1521 as controlling, directing that the claims be reconsidered in light of that decision within six months. The judgment emphasizes adherence to Supreme Court directions and the need to resolve the petition promptly.”

Provisions of Law Cited

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952Employees Pension Scheme, 1995

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that they duly executed joint option forms in collaboration with their employer and that respondents 2–5 have not processed these options or taken action, necessitating a mandamus to process the options and compute pensions based on the last drawn actual salary prior to retirement, in line with the Supreme Court’s directions. They seek mandamus to confer pension benefits under EPS 1995 calculated on average 12 months’ salary. The petition relies on directives from P. Sasikumar (ILR 2019 Ker. 614) and RC Gupta (2018) SCC 809, and ultimately on the Supreme Court’s decision in EPF Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B (2022).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that responses and actions are to be guided by existing EPF/EPS guidelines and court directions. They emphasize that joint options were submitted and that processing should be in accordance with statutory schemes and established EPF/EPF-O guidelines. They rely on the Supreme Court’s directives in Sunil Kumar B to resolve the matter and seek orderly compliance through the court’s supervision, rather than ad hoc mandamus. They submit that the case should be resolved within the framework of appellate and administrative procedures under the EPF Act and EPS 1995.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
P. Sasikumar and others vs. Union of India and othersILR 2019 (1) Ker. 614PositiveCited as part of the relied-upon dicta guiding the computation/entitlement framework, used in support of the petitioners’ position.
R. C. Gupta and Others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization & others2018 (14) SCC 809PositiveCited as supportive authority for the entitlement and computation principles invoked in the petition.
EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others2022 SCC Online SC 1521PositiveThe decision is treated as controlling for resolving the grievance and directing reconsideration within six months.

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 Shaji T.S. 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 BASANT BALAJI TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1945 ``` ## _`WP(C) NO. 27482 OF 2020`_ ## _`PETITIONERS:`_ ``` 1SHAJI T.S. AGED 59 YEARS S/O.SUNDARESAN, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00110925, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, THACHANGAD (H), ASHTAMICHIRA P.O., THRISSUR-680731. 2VENKITACHALAM V., AGED 60 YEARS S/O.VISWANATHAN V., P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/111204, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, NALONNU VADAKAEMADOM, NEAR KANNANPUZHA TEMPLE, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR- 680307. 3ABDUL SATHAR K.M., AGED 61 YEARS S/O.MOIDHEENKUTTY, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00102709, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, KANDOTH HOUSE, VATTEKUNNAM, MUTTAR P.O., EDAPALLY NORTH, ERNAKULAM- 682024. 4ABDUL SALAM P.A, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00098970, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, PADINJAKKARA HOUSE, VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPALLY NORTH, ERNAKULAM-682024. 5P.V.SUDHAKARAN, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. P.E.VELAYUDHAN, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00091798, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, PULICKAKUDYIL HOUSE, OKKAL P.O., PAZHAYAKADAVU ROAD, ERNAKULAM-683550. 6SATHYAMOORTHY S., AGED 60 YEARS S/O. SREENIVASAN POTTY, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00105527, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, NAKSHATRA, AYYANATTU LANE, CHANDRUTHIL ROAD, EDAPALLY-682024. 7NARAYANAN KUTTY P., AGED 61 YEARS ``` 2 ``` WP(C) NO. 27482 OF 2020 ``` ``` S/O. KRISHNA THARAKAN, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00104739, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, KARTHIKA, MOOTHEDATH LANE, NETAJI ROAD, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683101. 8JUSTIN MAXY K.G., AGED 60 YEARS S/O. K.C.GEORGE, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00104377, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, KAVALAKAL HOUSE, SMASHANAM ROAD, EDAKOCHI P.O., KOCHIN-682010. 9PAULOSE T., AGED 62 YEARS S/O. A.P.THARIATH, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00097346, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, AKKUNNATH HOUSE, VARAPUZHA LANDING P.O., ERNAKULAM-683517. 10GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. K.J.JOSEPH, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00083831, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, 34/191, KOZHUPPAKKALAM, EDAPPALLY P.O., CHAMBOKKADAVU ROAD, KOCHI-682024. 11JOGGY JACOB, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. P.V.JACOB, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00093694, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, MANJANAKKAD ROAD, NARAKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM-682505. 12K.NANDA KUMAR, AGED 69 YEARS S/O. RAMAN MENON, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00064464, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, KEERTHANA, 2ND CONVENT ROAD, THOTTAKATTUKARA, ALUVA-683108. 13HARIDAS N.K., AGED 66 YEARS S/O. N.K.KRISHNAN, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00072091, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, NELLIKUNNEL HOUSE, MEEMUTTY, KALAYANTHANI P.O., THODUPUZHA-685588. 14ABDUL SALAM E., AGED 63 YEARS S/O. ESMAIL, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00098969, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, THARAYILDARULKARAM, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA-688532. 15THOMAS V.O., AGED 65 YEARS S/O. V.D.OUSEPH, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00083020, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, VELIYATH HOUSE, NEAR ST. MARY'S CHURCH, KORATTY PADINAREANGADY, KORATTY, ``` _`WP(C) NO. 27482 OF 2020`_ 3 ``` THRISSUR-680308. 16M.SUKU, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. MANAS, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00097526, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, AMBALATHINVILAKATTUVEEDU, KONOOR, NALUKETTU P.O., KORATTY, THRISSUR-680308. 17SALIM K.D., AGED 61 YEARS S/O. DIVAKARAN, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00101116, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, DWARAKA, MANATHUPADAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM- 682033. 18MOHAN RAJAN V., AGED 68 YEARS S/O. T.K.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00036404, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, SOUPARNIKA, KAREEPARAMBA, KUTTIKKOL P.O., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR- 670562. 19SANKARANKUTTY K., AGED 68 YEARS S/O. C.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00066042, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, KEZHUTE HOUSE, PARTHASARATHY, PULLAZHY P.O., THRISSUR-680012. 20RADHAKRISHNAN A.N., AGED 59 YEARS S/O.GOPALAN NAIR A.N., P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/000111241, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, PALIYATHIL (H), KALATHINGALPARAMBU ROAD, VATTEKKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH P.O., ERNAKULAM-682024. 21GAGANAN K.K., AGED 65 YEARS S/O.KESAVAN, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00095466, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, KOOVAPARAMBIL HOUSE, HARITHA GARDENS, NEAR SANTHIGIRI, H.M.T.COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY-683503. 22P.ACHUTHANKUTTY, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. LATE V.V.KRISHNA MARAR, P.P.O.NO.KR/KCH/00071860, CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, SWATHY, NO.1/645 DWARAKAPURI COLONY, KADAMKODE, KARINGARAPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD-678551. BY ADVS. R.SANJITH ``` 4 ``` WP(C) NO. 27482 OF 2020 ``` ## _`SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH`_ ## _`RESPONDENTS:`_ - _`1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI110001.`_ - _`2 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, 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 ORGANIZATION, 37, ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD, OPPOSITE SWAGAT HOTEL, CHENNAI600014.`_ - _`4 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682017.`_ - _`5 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION , FORT ROAD, KANNUR-670001.`_ - _`6 CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, PARRY HOUSE, 43, MOORE STREET, CHENNAI-600001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.`_ - _`7 CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, ELECTRO MINERALS DIVISION, P.B.NO.1, KALAMASSERY DEVELOPMENT PLOT PO, KOCHI-683104, INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT.`_ - _`8 CARBORUNDUM UNIVERSAL LIMITED, ELECTRO MINERALS DIVISION, NALUKETTU P.O., KORATTY, THRISSUR-650308, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT HEAD. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN, CGC SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F.`_ ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 5 ``` WP(C) NO. 27482 OF 2020 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 7[th] day of November, 2023 ## This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- I) “To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2 to 5 to process Exhibits P1 to P22 joint option forms submitted by the petitioners and compute the monthly pension paid to them in proportions to their respective last drawn actual salary immediately preceding their date of retirement in compliance with the dictum laid down in P. Sasikumar and others vs. Union of India and others; ILR 2019 (1) Ker. 614 and R. C. Gupta and Others Vs. Regional Provident fund Commissioner Employees Provident fund Organization & others 2018 (14) SCC 809, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court. II) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 2-5 to confer the petitioners with all the pensionary benefits under the Employee’s Pension Scheme, 1995, calculated on the basis of average 12 months’ salary immediately prior to their retirement/exit from membership of the pension fund, as per the provisions of the 6 ``` WP(C) NO. 27482 OF 2020 ``` Scheme, 1995.” 2. The petitioners are retired from the service of 6[th] respondent from various designations. Petitioners 3-14, 17-22 were working with 7[th] respondent and petitioners 1,2, 15 and 16 were working with the 8[th] respondent. Respondents 7 and 8 are the manufacturing units of the 6[th] respondent. Employees of 6[th] respondent are covered by the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners have duly executed the joint options along with the employer. But in spite of the earnest efforts of petitioners, respondents 2 to 5 are neither processing the joint option submitted by them nor taking any action on the same. Hence, this writ petition is filed. 4. 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 _`WP(C) NO. 27482 OF 2020`_ 7 online SC 1521] and 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 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** ## **BASANT BALAJI,** **JUDGE** SRJ 8 ``` WP(C) NO. 27482 OF 2020 ``` ## _`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27482/2020`_ ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 13.8.2020. EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 13.8.2020. EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 1.8.2020. EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 1.8.2020. EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 8TH PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 10TH PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 11TH PETITIONER DATED 1.8.2020. EXHIBIT P12TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 12TH PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P13TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 13TH PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P14TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 14TH PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P15TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 15TH PETITIONER DATED 13.8.2020. EXHIBIT P16TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 16TH PETITIONER DATED 13.8.2020. EXHIBIT P17TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 17TH PETITIONER DATED 1.8.2020. EXHIBIT P18TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 18TH PETITIONER DATED 1.8.2020. EXHIBIT P19TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 19TH PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. ``` 9 ``` WP(C) NO. 27482 OF 2020 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P20TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 20TH PETITIONER DATED 5.10.2020. EXHIBIT P21TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 21ST PETITIONER DATED 1.8.2020. EXHIBIT P22TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT OPTION FORM OF THE 22ND PETITIONER DATED 1.8.2020. EXHIBIT P23TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.2.2020 IN WP(C) NO.2166/2020. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P24TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.7.2020 IN W.P.C.NO.14475/2019. EXHIBIT P25TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.O.C.1657/2020 DATED 6.11.2020. EXHIBIT P26TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3630/2020 DATED 5.11.2020 OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. ```