The petitioners, two teaching staff (a Lower Primary School Assistant and an Arabic Teacher), challenge the denial of approval for their appointments in A.M.L.P.School, Thottasseriara. They were first appointed during a ban period created by G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn (12.01.2010); their approvals were granted only from 1.6.2011 after the ban and following the introduction of a Teachers’ Package. The petitioners contend that, notwithstanding the non-execution of bonds by the manager, the bond should be deemed executed and the manager obliged to effect appointments from the protected-teacher list equal in number to posts approved during the ban. They have filed revision petitions (Exts P14 and P15) and seek directions to the 1st respondent to consider them in light of settled precedents. The respondents’ counsel counters that appointments in additional division vacancies must be apportioned 1:1 and that a bond should have been executed if a protected-teacher appointment was not made, noting ongoing challenges to G.O.(P) No.10/10 and pending Supreme Court matters. The court relies on the Suma Devi precedent, disposing the petition with directions to consider the revision petitions within four months, while deeming bonds to be effectively executed and ensuring proportional appointments, subject to final Apex Court orders.
Ananthapuri Hospitals & Research Institute, Thiruvananthapuram, petitions for a writ of mandamus to remove encroachments—bunk shops and other temporary sheds—on the National Highway adjoining the hospital. The hospital contends that illegal street vendors have crowded the hospital frontage, obstructing ingress and egress, hindering ambulances in emergencies, and causing traffic congestion and safety hazards. Despite complaints to the Regional Transport Officer and the National Highway Authority, eviction of the encroachers has not been sustained, as vendors reoccupy spaces post-removal. The petitioner asserts that the Street Vendors Act, 2014 and the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019 declare vending-free zones around critical institutions, including hospitals, within 50 metres of the entrance. Respondents 8 and 9 deny encroachment, claiming protection under the Act and livelihood rights earned over decades. The court notes the hospital’s proximity to the National Highway, an area in which no vending rights attach; it cites Bombay Hawkers Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan to support removal of encroachments on public streets. It also cites Kerala case law and the need for coordinated action by the Corporation, Police, District Administration and NHAI to remove encroachments and prevent re-entry. The writ petition is allowed with directions for expeditious, concerted action to restore free flow of traffic and access to emergency services.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by 16 accused persons (Nithin Sunny and others) who were arraigned in CC No.3219/2017 before a Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor, for offences under IPC Sections 143, 145, 148, 341, 427, 506(i) read with Section 149. The prosecution alleges that on 4 October 2017, around 12:45 pm, the accused formed an unlawful assembly, wrongfully restrained the informant, and committed mischief. The petition seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings in light of an amicable settlement between the parties, supported by an affidavit of the de facto complainant/injured witness who states he bears no lasting grievances. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging no prior serious crimes against the petitioners, expresses reservations about invoking the court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash solely on settlement. The court refers to State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and the holdings in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, explaining the scope and limits of Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences with a predominantly civil character when parties settle, while not allowing quashing for heinous or public‑interest offences (e.g., 307 IPC, Arms Act) or where evidence is lacking. After weighing gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court holds that quashing is justified in the interests of peace and ends of justice, allowing the petition and quashing Final Report in Crime No.1738/2017 and all further proceedings in CC 3219/2017. The order is signed by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
The revision petitioner, Anil @ Anilkumar, challenged his conviction under Section 55(i) and Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act, as upheld by the Ad-hoc Court-I, Pathanamthitta, and modified to Section 58 in respect of the Section 55(a) count by the appellate court, without altering the sentence. The prosecution case centres on detection on 23.08.2001 of 79.875 litres of illicit foreign liquor at the accused’s residence in Eraviperoor, leading to a seizure and registration of offences under sections 55(a), 55(g) and 55(i) of the Abkari Act. PWs 1-7 and Exts P1-P12 and MOs 1-4 were examined; samples were sealed and sent for chemical analysis (Ext.P12). The trial court convicted both on 55(a) and 55(i) with three years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs 1,00,000 fine on each count, with a default sentence. The revision contends material defects in the prosecution’s chain of custody and documentation: absence of specimen seal impressions in Ext.P1 (search list/seizure mahazar) and Ext.P11 (forwarding note), delay in forwarding to the laboratory, use of a subordinate as investigating officer, the arrest memo bearing a crime number, and unexplained delays. The High Court ultimately finds these defects render the prosecution evidence unreliable and acquits the accused, setting aside conviction and sentence and allowing the revision petition.
WP(C) Nos. 2787/2023, 1793/2023 & 1838/2023 The three connected writ petitions filed in the Kerala High Court seek directions to the Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayath to process and pass orders on building permit applications without insisting on development permits from the Panchayath. The petitioners, owners of small plots, had submitted building permit applications but the Panchayath reportedly refused to entertain them on the ground that development permits for the underlying parcels were not obtained by prior owners before subdivision. The petitions contend that there is no legal provision requiring development permits as a precondition for considering building permits for individual small plots, and that such a requirement would unjustifiably prejudice owners of small plots. They rely on decisions of this Court including Nafeesa v. Chavakkad Municipality (2018 (3) KLT 1) and Panjal Grama Panchayath v. Aneesh P. (2022 (2) KLT 653), which support a more permissive approach toward grant of building permits without a prior development permit in similar circumstances. The respondents argued that notices had been issued to previous owners for non-compliance and that action against some buyers was ongoing. On hearing, the Court held that there is no provision obligating development permits for individual building permit consideration and that the petitioners are entitled to relief. The impugned notices were set aside and directions were issued to proceed under the Panchayath Building Rules, with orders to be passed within three weeks. The petitions are allowed accordingly.
WP(C) Nos. 19203/2020, 20591/2020, 21370/2020 The judgment addresses three writ petitions challenging the rank lists published for specific posts under the Kerala Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation framework, namely Plant Attender Grade III and Technician (Boiler Grade II). The petitioners allege illegality, arbitrariness, and denial of natural justice in the recruitment process and seek quashing of the rank lists, along with directions for publishing answer keys, marks, and preliminary lists. In WP(C) No. 20591/2020, it is contended that no rank list has been published, but the petitioner seeks access to examination materials. The arguments foreground concerns about fairness, due process, and compliance with circulars and regulations governing the recruitment. Before arguments, respondents raise a maintainability objection referencing a Full Bench decision, Association of Milma Officers v. State of Kerala, suggesting writ petitions against cooperative societies are only tenable for statutory violations or public-duty breaches, with a statutory remedy under Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The court ultimately dismisses the petitions as not maintainable, noting that the rank lists’ validity has expired and that no order for belated selection can be granted, while granting liberty to pursue remedies under the Act.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case filed under Section 482 CrPC in the Kerala High Court, concerning Crl.M.C. No. 592/2023 filed by four accused (Rajeevan T.S., Dileep Kumar, Johnson K.P., and M. Sankaranarayanan) challenging the continuation of prosecution in CC No. 1273/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam. The accused were charged with offences under IPC Section 384 read with Section 34 and under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, arising from an incident on 11-10-2018 involving a demand and snatching of Rs. 1000. The petition argues amicable settlement among the parties, supported by Annexure A3, and seeks quashing under the High Court’s inherent power in Section 482 CrPC. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor (and inferringly public interest considerations), objects to quashing solely on the basis of settlement, though states no other impediments and notes the de facto complainant’s statement recording no enduring grievance. The court relies on a body of Supreme Court precedents (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, etc.) and State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan to outline when 482 CrPC quashing is permissible, particularly in private and non-compoundable offences where the dispute is settled, with exceptions for heinous or public-interest offences. Ultimately, the court allows the petition, quashing CC 1273/2019 and all further proceedings.
This High Court of Kerala bail order concerns accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1525/2022 of the Ernakulam Town North Police Station, Ernakulam District, who are charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 8.11 kilograms of ganja on 11 December 2022. The petitioners seek regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution and IO establish the basic facts: the contraband was seized and the accused were arrested; the central issue is whether the failure to file a final report within the 60-day period under Section 167 CrPC necessitates statutory bail. The court notes that the final report has not been filed, and the prosecution concedes that it has not been filed so far. While a failure to file the final report may trigger statutory bail, the court must also secure the presence of the accused for trial, especially given their native origin in Bihar. Accordingly, the court grants statutory bail on stringent conditions, to ensure appearance and compliance with investigations. The bail is granted by bond for Rs. 75,000 with two Kerala-based solvent sureties, which must be secured by property and tax receipts. The petitioners must produce identity cards (Election Commission or Aadhaar) and a letter from the SH.O. detailing their permanent address and relatives, and must comply with conditions including no witness intimidation, cooperation with investigation, weekly appearances until final report is filed, surrender of passport, and abstaining from further offences. The order reflects a balance between liberty and effective trial.
This Bail Application under Section 439 CrPC concerns accused Nos. 1 and 2—Azhar Ali P U and Rinshad M A—arrested in a prosecution under Sections 132(1)(b) and (c) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 in File GST/IBK/IA/INS-14/2021-2022 (Kottayam). The prosecution alleges that the petitioners secured fraudulent GST registrations for fictitious firms in Kerala, availed bogus Input Tax Credit aggregating Rs.12,33,09,008 and passed fake Input Tax Credit through GSTR-1 amounting to Rs.12,58,60,122, resulting in substantial revenue loss. They were arrested on 10.11.2022 and have remained in judicial custody. The petitioners’ counsel argued innocence and stated that custody from 17.11.2022 to 19.11.2022 was brief, that the investigation is in an advanced stage, and that further interrogation is unnecessary; they invoked the protections of CrPC Sections 437 and 439, noting the offence carries a maximum punishment of five years. The Special Government Pleader for Taxes opposed bail, describing the offense as grave and stressing the need to safeguard electronic records and witnesses in a major economic offense. The court reaffirmed the bail principle (bail is the rule, jail the exception) under Article 21, noted no rigid formula for bail, and considered the duration of custody. It finally granted bail subject to strict conditions: Rs.10 lakh bond per petitioner with two solvent sureties, appearance on specified days, restriction to the jurisdiction, surrender of passport, prohibition on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and ongoing obligation not to interfere with the investigation, with bail cancellable on violation. The order reinforces the presumption of innocence and that punishment follows conviction.
This writ petition (criminal) challenges a notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and the subsequent freezing of the petitioner’s Ratnakar Bank account in relation to a cyber fraud case. The petitioner, involved in trading shares and crypto currencies, is not an accused in the underlying offence, and there is no established link between Muhammed Sahil (the complainant) and the petitioner. The notice purportedly under Section 91 Cr.P.C. directed freezing of the account without adherence to Section 102 Cr.P.C. procedures, and the respondents maintain that the transaction details reveal that funds fraudulently collected were funneled through the petitioner’s account and other linked accounts. The investigation describes a chain of transfers on 27.11.2022 totaling Rs.1,50,500 and ultimately entering the petitioner’s account as a portion of proceeds, with subsequent movements and allegations of lack of money-source clarity. The Inspector contends the petitioner refused to refund the amount, prompting the freezing action. The High Court discusses the constitutional and statutory safeguards under Section 102 Cr.P.C., citing State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy and Madhu K. v. Sub Inspector of Police to emphasize that suspicion and direct nexus with the offence are prerequisites and that the freezing power must not be exercised arbitrarily. Ultimately, the court limits the freeze to Rs.1,41,522.2 and orders reporting to the Magistrate within three days, disposing of the petition accordingly.
CRL.MC 1019/2022; connected con.cases (798/2022; 1010/2022; 1995/2022; 3048/2022) The Kerala High Court, before Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., heard a cluster of criminal miscellaneous petitions (CRL.MCs 1019/2022; 798/2022; 1010/2022; 1995/2022; 3048/2022) challenging the cognizance and proceedings in CC 498/2021 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, arising from a private complaint under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (TOHO & T Act) and the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners include the Aster Medcity hospital and several doctors involved in organ-death certification and potential liver transplantation, while the respondents include the State and private complainant Dr. S. Ganapathy. The core allegations concern brain-death declarations and the alleged coercive transplantation of organs (Ajay Johny’s liver to Suresh) without proper authority or procedure. The petitions challenge the cognizance, mainly on grounds of non-compliance with Section 22(1)(b) of the TOHO & T Act (notice), lack of pre-cognizance expert opinion from an Appropriate Authority, and the need for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C for public servants. The court ultimately held that cognizance and proceedings were liable to be quashed, emphasizing the protection and procedural safeguards for medical professionals under the Act and the need for expert pre-cognizance assessment, while noting only minor discrepancies in brain-death certification which do not attract TOHO & T Act offences.
Usha Vijayakumar, an instrumentalist (Gottuvadyam) in All India Radio, Calicut, challenged OA 1010/2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), via OP (CAT) No. 344 of 2017, seeking quash of Annexure A3 (02.12.2008) and fresh orders in line with Annexure A1 (27.03.2008) directing ACP benefits. The CAT in Ext. P8 (17.02.2017) had annulled Annexure A3 and directed fresh orders granting the pay upgradation under the ACP scheme (2nd upgradation: Rs. 10,000-15,200 with GP 6,600) and arrears within three months. The petitioner contends that she, an instrumentalist, was eligible for ACP/MACP benefits and that the department’s action violated the Tribunal’s direction and the ACP framework, including recognition that the post is an isolated post enabling a pay-upgradation without creating new posts. The respondents argue that the instrumentalist post cannot be treated as an isolated post, that Annexure A3 complied with the Tribunal’s A1 order, and that parity with others granted wrong benefits cannot be countenanced. The High Court notes the Tribunal’s piecemeal pleadings and remits the matter to determine entitlement under the ACP/MACP scheme, referencing ACP (O.M. 09.08.1999) and the doctrine that isolated posts are upgradable in the next higher scales. The Court ultimately allows the petition, sets aside Ext. P8, and holds the respondent entitled to 1st ACP (Rs. 6,500-10,500) from 09.08.1999, 2nd ACP (Rs. 9,300-34,800 with GP 4,800) from 06.03.2006, and 3rd MACP (Rs. 9,300-34,800 with GP 5,400) from 06.03.2012, with arrears, pensionary benefits revision, and interest, within two months. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) arising from an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Liberty General Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant) challenges the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) No.918/2018, regarding the death of Akhil Asokan, aged 21, who died after sustaining injuries on 22 July 2018 while riding as a pillion on a motorcycle. The petitioners (Asokan K.N. and family members) claimed compensation of Rs. 47.32 lakh as dependants. The Tribunal allowed the claim in part, directing the insurer to pay Rs. 25,38,035 in the ratio 40:40:10:10. The insurer contends on two principal grounds: (i) the Tribunal’s notional income for the deceased (Rs.15,000/month) is excessive, contrary to benchmarks in Ramachandrappa (2011) and Pushkar Mehra (2015); (ii) the medical expenses awarded (Rs.1,30,035) are too high. The insurer also contested the allegation of negligence by the first respondent. The respondents contend the accident occurred due to the first respondent’s negligence and emphasize dependence and deserved compensation. The High Court, after examining pleadings and evidence, upheld the Tribunal’s conclusions, agreeing that Rs.15,000 per month is reasonable given age and occupation, and that medical costs are justified. Citing New Indian Assurance Co. v. Kiran Singh, the court condemned needless protraction by insurers, and dismissed the MACA at the threshold, preserving the Tribunal’s award.
Crl.MC.No.3890 of 2020 (E) Lenin Ravindran, accused No.3 in RC 2(A)/2018/CBI/ACB/Cochin, filed Crl.MC No.3890/2020 under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash Annexure-A1 FIR. The petition concerns the first accused, an Additional Director of CGHS, and the second accused, his wife, with Lenin Ravindran as proprietor of M/s South End Trade Links. The FIR alleges that the first accused amassed wealth disproportionate to his income from 01-01-2007 to 31-03-2017 in a conspiracy with the second accused; it also relates to purchase of medicines by the CGHS from the fourth accused firm, suggesting the first accused issued an order for medicines on 26.05.2017 and that false documents were created to show receipt and storage at the CGHS office. The petitioner argues that Annexure-A1 does not disclose a cognizable offence against him and seeks quashing. The CBI counters that the FIR discloses cognizable offences and that investigation has been proceeding since 2018, with sanctions for prosecution obtained and a final report due. The court cites Privy Council principles in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed and State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kumar Guha to illustrate that police investigation is generally unfettered unless no cognizable offence is disclosed. The court ultimately holds that cognizable offence is disclosed, rejects the quashing petition, and directs the CBI to file a final report within four months, disposing of the petition accordingly. This reflects a cautious approach to interference with ongoing investigations while safeguarding procedural rights.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5066 OF 2025 UMMER@SANU, the petitioner, faces charges under sections 110 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) in Crime No. 160/2025 registered at Nilambur Police Station. The bail application is before the Kerala High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The prosecution alleges a deliberate assault with a peeler knife by the accused at Elampuzha Mambad on 07.02.2025, aimed at the friend of the defacto complainant, resulting in grievous injuries. The petitioner has been in custody since 17.02.2025. The counsel for the petitioner argues that though the offence is serious, indefinite incarceration is unwarranted because the petitioner is willing to abide by stringent conditions and cooperate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting criminal antecedents, including two pending cases with one conviction. The court acknowledges the seriousness of the allegations but reiterates the long-standing bail principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Supreme Court and Kerala decisions. It notes that once a case is made out for bail, denial is not mandatory. The court grants bail with conditions, including a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, restriction on leaving India, and prohibition on committing similar offences. Observations are constrained to the bail proceeding, and the decision aligns with Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. The order directs compliance with the stated conditions and preserves the right of the prosecution and victim to seek cancellation for violation.
This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard Criminal Revision Petition (Crl.R.P. No.3591 of 2008) filed by Ramachandran, challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Abkari Act, affirmed by the Sessions Court and the Trial Court. The prosecution case was that on 09.11.2000 at 8.35 a.m. Excise officials seized two litres of illicit arrack from near the shop of Bapputty, leading to Ramachandran’s arrest and subsequent conviction. The appellate court sustained the conviction. In the revision petition, the petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure and chain of custody beyond reasonable doubt; crucial evidence like PWs 2 and 3 (independent witnesses) turned hostile; DW1 (the shopkeeper) testified inconsistently, suggesting no seizure occurred. A central fault highlighted is the unexplained delay in forwarding the seized liquid to the Chemical Laboratory (the sample apparently reached the lab only on 04.12.2000 after being forwarded on 09.11.2000) and the substantial delay in investigation and filing of the final report (28.02.2004), creating reasonable doubt about the integrity of the sample and the chain of evidence. The court cites Krishnadas v. State of Kerala (2019) KHC 191, Kumaran P. v. State of Kerala (2016), and Moothedath Sivadasan v. State of Kerala (2021) to emphasize timely investigation and the impact of unexplained delays. On these grounds, the High Court acquits Ramachandran and allows the revision petition, replacing the earlier conviction with an acquittal and cancelling bail.
The appellant is Mrs. Ann Benny, a director and licensee associated with Parays Holiday Hotels (P) Ltd. She challenged an order of the Excise Commissioner under the Abkari Act and Foreign Liquor Rules, which imposed a fine of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 67(2) and (3) for reconstitution of the Board of Directors without prior permission, and a Rs. 1,00,000 fee under Rule 19(iii) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. The writ petition before the Kerala High Court sought quashing of the order (Exhibit P7) and a declaration that sub-sections 67(2) and (3) of the Abkari Act, to the extent they require prior permission for reconstitution, are ultra vires the Companies Act, 1956. The Single Judge refused interim relief, and this writ appeal was preferred. The appellant argued that a resignation by one director does not necessarily amount to reconstitution of the Board in a company, especially since the licence remained in the appellant’s name and there was no change in shareholding. She invoked Panamoottil Investments to support Rule 19 as a mechanism to prevent undesirable licensees and contended that the penalties could not be extended at the interim stage. The respondents argued that the change in the Board constitutes reconstitution and is within Section 67 and Rule 19’s scope. The Division Bench ultimately held there was no illegality in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s decision.
This Rent Control Revision (R.C.Rev. No. 89 of 2014) challenges the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s order fixing fair rent for the ground floor portion of Aiswarya Building, MG Road, Ernakulam. The revision petitioner, Avinash V. Saraf, the tenant, had earlier seen the Rent Control Court fix a fair rent of Rs. 6,650 per month with a 10% increase every two years. On appeal, the Rent Control Appellate Authority refixed the rent at Rs. 11,400 per month with a 15% enhancement every two years. The petitioner argues the Appellate Authority relied upon inadmissible evidence and ignored material factors such as building dilapidation and lack of direct access to MG Road; he also contends that the cross-examined testimony of PW1 regarding rent paid for a different portion of the same building was unpleaded and should not have influenced the decision. He invokes guidelines from Edgar Ferus to stress that fair rent must be determined by considering evidence beyond pleadings. The respondents contend the Appellate Authority used admissible evidence and considered relevant factors, including the property’s locality, amenities, and building conditions, consistent with legal principles. The High Court discusses revisional jurisdiction under Section 20, citing several precedents, and ultimately upholds the Appellate Authority’s approach, concluding the Appellate determination is not perverse. The revision is dismissed, leaving the rent determination intact.
WP(C).No.19588 OF 2020(W) Bindu P.P., a Lower Primary School teacher at Thiruval U.P.School, Kannur, challenges Exts. P6 and P7, which hold her liable for alleged bogus admissions. The matter arose after an inspection by the Super Check Cell on 13.10.2017 and 07.02.2018, which found that a student named Fathimul Najila M.P did not appear on the school rolls, though she was claimed to be admitted on 01.06.2016 (Admission No.5753) and subsequently promoted, with the student reportedly leaving on 04.07.2017 after obtaining a Transfer Certificate. The petitioner contends that the facts are documented by proper evidence and that the Educational Authorities failed to properly consider them; Ext.P4 Revision was rejected without due consideration. She asserts that the Transfer Certificate was genuine and that the absence findings are unfounded, arguing that, under Section 12A of the Kerala Education Act, disciplinary action requires adherence to the proviso mandating notice to the Manager and a reasonable opportunity to contest. She relies on Kishore v. State of Kerala (2019) (4) KLT 155 to support the contention that procedural violations render the impugned orders unsustainable. The Respondents counter that the Super Check Cell found absence on the inspection dates, and that the Transfer Certificate was not properly prepared, with no adequate documents before the authorities. The judge ultimately finds that due process under Section 12A was not satisfied and sets aside Ext.P6, directing reconsideration with hearing and review of documents, in light of Kishore’s ratio.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 183 OF 2020 This Contempt of Court Case (Cont. Case (C) No.183 of 2020) arises from a judgment dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) No.19652/2016 and connected matters, wherein petitioners 6, 8 and 13 contended willful disobedience of Annexure A1 directions. The petitioners, who are employees of the ERCMPU Dairy at Thrissur, claimed that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) had failed to implement the pension-related directions on higher pension, transfer of funds, and option provisions under the pension scheme. Annexure A2 records the SLP lodged against the 2018 judgment, which the Supreme Court later scrutinized in 2022. The apex court’s judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.8143-8144 of 2022 (Sunil Kumar B.) held the G.S.R. 609(E) notification legal and valid, clarified the applicability of the amended pension scheme, and directed that certain options and funding adjustments be implemented. Paragraph 44 of that judgment directed, among other things, extending options under the post-amendment scheme, protection of rights of those who did not exercise options, and temporary adjustments. Following these developments, the High Court held that the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO in accordance with law. The learned Standing Counsel stated the EPFO would undertake the exercise in line with the apex court directions. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed, without prejudice to EPFO’s right to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement.
