Shaji T.S. and others v Union of India and others
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
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 Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| P. Sasikumar and others vs. Union of India and others | ILR 2019 (1) Ker. 614 | Positive | Cited 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 & others | 2018 (14) SCC 809 | Positive | Cited as supportive authority for the entitlement and computation principles invoked in the petition. |
| EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others | 2022 SCC Online SC 1521 | Positive | The decision is treated as controlling for resolving the grievance and directing reconsideration within six months. |
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 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.