WP(C) No. 36908 of 2015
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Sathish Ninan
- Judgment Date
- 2023-09-11
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioners to file appropriate applications seeking enhanced pension in terms of the amended scheme and the directions of the Supreme Court. If such an application is submitted, the same shall be considered by the appropriate authority of the Organization without delay.
- Final Disposition
- Disposed of with directions to file a fresh application for enhanced pension under the amended scheme; such applications to be considered by the EPFO without delay.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- JAYAKUMAR K.S.
- JAYAKUMAR V
- JAYALEKSHMI L.C
- JESSY E.P
- JOHNKUTTY D
- JOHNSON S
- JOHNY J
- JOSE THOMAS A
- JOSEPH JERALD
- JOY B
- JUSTUS J
- KALESH BABU
- KISHORE V
- KOCHUNARAYANAN K.B
- KRISHNA PILLAI N
- KRISHNANKUTTY K.G.
- KUMARI MEENA V
- KURIAN K.PHILIP
- LALIDHARAN R
- LEVAMONY C
- MALLIKADEVI P
- MANI P
- MANIKANTAN PILLAI R
- MANOJ K.R
- MANOJANA BABU
- MATHEW IPE
- MATHEWKUTTY P.C
- MENAKA
- MOHAN C
- MOHANAN NAIR A
- MOHANAN NAIR D
- MOHANDAS C.A
- MOHAMMED SHAJAHAN S
- MOLLY GEORGE
- MUMTHAZ A
- MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI P
- MURUKAN S
- NANDAKUMAR P
- NAZAR H
- NAZEEMA A
- NEHAMMADULLA
- NIMIZAD M
- OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI B
- PADMAKUMAR A
- PAPPACHAN A
- PHILIP OOMMEN
- PRASANNAKUMAR R
- PRASANNAN K.P
- PRATHAPAN R
- PRIDHI RAJ P
- PURUSHOTHAMAN POTTY J
Respondents
- UNION OF INDIA, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, Shram Sakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-110 001
- The Central Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavhishyanidhi Bhavan, 14 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066
- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004
- The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Poonnamma Chambers, Parameswar Nagar, Kollam-691 001.
- KERALA ELECTRICALS ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED, Kundara PO, Kollam-691 501, represented by its Managing Director.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri P. Ramakrishnan
- • Sri C. Anil Kumar
- • Smt. Asha K. Shenoy
- • Sri S.K. Harish
- • Smt. Preethi Ramakrishnan
- • Sri Pratap Abraham Varghese
Counsels for Respondents
- • Smt. Sreekala K.L., CGC for R1
- • Sri N.N. Sugunapalan (Sr.)
- • Smt. Nita N.S, SC for R2 to R4
- • Sri M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar
- • Sri P. Gopinath
- • Sri K. John Mathai
- • Sri Joson Manavalalan
- • Sri Kurian Thomas
- • Sri N.N. Sugunapalan Sr.
- • Smt. T.N. Girija, SCEPF Organisation
- • Shri Haridas P. Nair, CGC
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition, WP(C) No. 36908 of 2015, is filed in the Kerala High Court by 51 petitioners employed with Kerala Electricals & Allied Engineering Company Limited (KEL) seeking higher pension under the Employees’ Provident Scheme in light of the 2014 amendment. The petitioners contend that the amended scheme provides enhanced pension benefits and urge the Court to direct the Organization to grant such enhanced pension to them under the amended framework. The respondents’ Standing Counsel counters by noting that the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the 2014 amendment to the Employees’ Provident Scheme; accordingly the petitioners may file fresh applications under the amended scheme, which should be considered in accordance with the amended provisions and the Court’s directions in the Sunil Kumar B. decision. The Court, after hearing, upholds the amended scheme’s validity as per the Apex Court and disposes of the petition by permitting the petitioners to submit appropriate applications for enhanced pension under the amended scheme. If such applications are filed, they must be considered by the appropriate authority within the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation without delay. The decision thereby channels relief through an administrative process under the amended scheme rather than granting direct writ relief, while keeping the petition alive for eventual relief under the amended framework.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners seek higher pension under the 2014 amendment to the Employees’ Provident Scheme, arguing that the amended scheme provides for enhanced pension benefits and should be applied to them. They rely on the validity of the amended scheme as upheld by higher courts to claim relief and compel administrative action under the amended framework.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contend that, following the Supreme Court’s judgment upholding the amended scheme’s validity, petitioners may file fresh applications under the amended scheme, which should be considered by the appropriate authority of the EPFO without delay.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar.B | 2022(7)KHC 12 | Positive | The apex court’s judgment upholding the 2014 amendment to the Employees’ Provident Scheme is cited as the basis for applicability of the amended scheme and grant of relief through the administrative process. |
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 WP(C) No. 36908 of 2015 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.