High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-07-20Disposed of

W.P (C) No.15787 of 2020

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 15787 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C.S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2023-07-20
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of with directions: (i) Respondents 2 to 4 to reconsider the claims in light of the Sunil Kumar B decision, upon representation within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment; (ii) If a representation is submitted, it shall be considered within three months from its submission, after hearing.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Krishnadasan M. P.
Seemandini P. Krishna Bhavan
Jayachandran R. Nandanam
Abraham A. V. Prathibha Nagar
Mini Joseph Essala Vattaram
Radhakrishnan V. Shreyas
K. Chandrababu Nithina House

Respondents

Union of India
Central Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organization
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II Employees' Provident Fund Organization
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) Employees' Provident Fund Organization
BPL Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Asok M. Cherian
• Sri N. Satheesh
• Sri K. Janardhana Shenoy

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Vijayakumar
• Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara

Case Synopsis & Summary

The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to revise the petitioners' monthly pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 by reckoning their actual salary (basic + DA) as pensionable salary and by accepting their option under proviso to paragraph 11(3). The petitioners claim they have been subscribers to the EPF and EPS and that they contributed to the Provident Fund based on actual salary above the ceiling; yet remittance to Pension Fund was made on the ceiling basis, ignoring the proviso. They have exercised the option for enhanced pension and are ready to pay any excess contributions with interest. By Exts P1 and P2 judgments, the Kerala High Court has already directed that petitioners in identical matters be entitled to remit based on actual salary drawn beyond the ceiling. Respondents resist, but the Supreme Court's decision in EPF Organization v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) SCC Online SC 1521 is cited to reflect settled law. The learned judge relies on that decision and states to reconsider the petition in light of its principles, directing the respondents to reconsider the claims within a month after service of the judgment, and to act within three months after the petitioners submit a representation after hearing. The petition is thus disposed with these directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995paragraph 11(3) of the Pension Schemeproviso to paragraph 11(3) of the Pension Scheme

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend they are eligible for pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 when they reached 58, and that their contributions to the provident fund were made on the basis of actual salary above the ceiling. They have exercised the option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) and are ready to remit the excess contribution with interest, seeking revision of pension to reflect actual salary drawn. They rely on Exts. P1 and P2 judgments of this Court in similar matters directing remittance and revision.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend the issue is settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organization and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others, (2022) SCC Online SC 1521, and therefore are prepared to reconsider the grievance in light of that decision.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
EPF Organization and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others	2022 SCC Online SC 1521	Positive	Supreme Court decision on a similar issue; the High Court directs reconsideration consistent with its principle.
Judgment of the Kerala High Court in WP(C) No. 3846 of 2019 and connected cases	WP(C) No. 3846 of 2019	Positive	Identical matter where remittance based on actual salary was directed; cited by the present Court as authority.
Judgment of the Kerala High Court in WP(C) No. 28321/2019	WP(C) No. 28321/2019	Positive	Another Kerala HC decision directing remittance based on actual salary; relied upon by the Court.

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 W.P (C) No.15787 of 2020 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 C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 15787 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 KRISHNADASAN M. P. AGED 59 YEARS, KRISHNA BHAVAN, KUPPIYODE ROAD, MARUTHA ROAD (PO), PALAKKAD - 678 007. PF UAN - 100196730287, PPO NO. KR/KKD/00070921. MOB - 9846973439. 2 SEEMANDINI P. KRISHNA BHAVAN, KUPPIYODE ROAD, MARUTHA ROAD (PO), PALAKKAD - 678 007. PF UAN - 100343526278, PPO NO. KR/KKD/00065299. 3 JAYACHANDRAN R. NANDANAM, UMA NAGAR, KODUNTHIRAPULLY, PALAKKAD - 678 004. PF UAN - 100173810028, PPO NO. KR/KKD/00065301. 4 ABRAHAM A. V. PRATHIBHA NAGAR, KUNNATHURMEDU P. O., KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD - 678 007. PF UAN - 100070117395, PPO NO. KR/KKD/00069163. 5 MINIJOSEPH ESSALA VATTARAM, PUDHUNAGARAM P. O., PALAKKAD - 678 503 PF UAN - 100227816114. 6 RADHAKRISHNAN V. SHREYAS, NEAR KUNNANUR GOVT. L. P. SCHOOL, CHANDRANAGAR (PO), PALAKKAD - 678 007. PF UAN - 100289686664. 7 K. CHANDRABABU NITHINA HOUSE, NARIKODE, CHANDRANAGAR (PO), PALAKKAD - 678 007. PF UAN - 100123138045. BY ADVS. ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.N.SATHEESH SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY **RESPONDENTS:** **2** ## **W.P (C ) No.15787 of 2020** - 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI - 110 001. - 2 CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14- BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 066. - 3 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISTION, REGIONAL / SUB REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, BOMMASANDRA, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, ANNAPOORNESWARI COMPLEX, SURVEY NO.37/1, SINGASANDRA, HUSSUR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN - 560 068. - 4 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P. B. NO.1806, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 006. - 5 BPL MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. KOOTTUPATHA, CHANDRANAGAR P. O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 007., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, EPF ORG. **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2023, THE COURT ON 20.7.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **3** ## **W.P (C ) No.15787 of 2020** ## **C.S.DIAS, J.** **========================= W.P (C ) No.15787of 2020 ========================= Dated this the 20[th] July, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to revise the monthly pension of the petitioners under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, reckoning their actual salary (Basic+DA) as their pensionable salary and by accepting their option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. 2. The petitioners' case is that, they are eligible for pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (in short 'Scheme') framed under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, when ## **W.P (C ) No.15787 of 2020** **4** they attained the age of 58 years, while working under the fifth respondent company. The petitioners assert that they are the subscribers of the Employees' Provident Fund and Employees' Pension Fund. Although they had made contributions to the provident fund, reckoning their actual salary above the ceiling limit prescribed under the Scheme, remittance to the Pension Fund from the contribution collected was made on the basis of the limit prescribed in paragraph 11 (3) of the Scheme, ignoring the proviso to the said paragraph, which was brought in by an amendment to the Scheme in the year 1996. The petitioners have exercised their option to have the enhanced pension, reckoning their actual salary as pensionable salary. The petitioners ## **W.P (C ) No.15787 of 2020** **5** are ready and willing to pay the excess contribution to the Pension Fund with interest. Yet, the respondents 2 to 4 are refusing to accept the option and pay them the pension. By Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, this Court has in identical matters directed that the petitioners in those writ petitions were entitled to remit to the Pension Fund, reckoning their actual salary drawn by them exceeding the ceiling limit. The petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the said judgments. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Heard; Sri.N.Satheesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Abraham.P.Meachinkara, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4. **6** ## **W.P (C ) No.15787 of 2020** 4. Sri. Abraham P.Meachinkara submitted that the question raised in the writ petition is now settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in **EPF Organization and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others** (2022 SCC online SC 1521). Hence, the respondents are ready to reconsider the grievance of the petitioners. 5. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition. Resultantly, I order the writ petition thus: (i) The respondents 2 to 4 are directed to re-consider the claims put forth by the petitioners, in the light of the principles laid **7** ## **W.P (C ) No.15787 of 2020** down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the afore-cited decision, on the petitioners submitting a representation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii) If the petitioners submit such a representation, the same shall be considered by the respondents 2 to 4, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a further period of three months from the date of submission of the representation, after affording the petitioners/ their duly authorised representative an opportunity of being heard. **Sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE** ma/15.7.2023 **8** ## **W.P (C ) No.15787 of 2020** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15787/2020** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25.02.2020 IN WP(C) NO.3846 OF 2019 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO.28321/2019, DATED 24.06.2020.