A.Muthukrishnan v. The Commissioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR A.Muthukrishnan ... Petitioner -vs1.The Commissioner Employment Provident Fund Organization Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan No.14, Bhikarji Cama Place New Delhi-110 066 2.The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) Regional Employment Provident Fund Organization No.18, Madurai Road Trichirapalli 3.The Managing Director N.P.K.R.R.Sugar Mills Limited Thalainayar ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to pay the petitioner the revised pension on Rs.15,000/- by extending the benefit of amended Clause 11(3) of Section 6A of the Employment Pension Scheme, 1995, by accepting and processing the joint option form in Ack No.230323222833001780011. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan For Respondents :

Mr.I.Pinaygash

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to pay him the revised pension on Rs.15,000/- by extending the benefit of the amended Clause 11(3) of Section 6A of the Employment Pension Scheme, 1995, by accepting and processing the joint option form in Ack. No.230323222833001780011.

2. The petitioner herein along with the respondent No.3 submitted a joint option form requesting the respondent Nos.1 & 2 for revised pension basing on the enhanced wages in terms of the order passed by the Honourable Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No.3290 of 2021, dated 04.11.2022, in the case of the

Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another vs. Sunil Kumar.B and others and the said option form of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 was considered by the respondent No.2 and on consideration, the respondent No.2 found certain defects / omissions in the option form submitted by the petitioner and the respondent No.3 and accordingly, a communication, dated 09.08.2024, was issued to the petitioner and the respondent No.3, requiring them to submit the required particulars.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the required particulars were submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.2 as early as on 12.12.2024, but the same is not being considered by the respondent No.2 herein. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking the relief as noted above.

4. Mr.I.Pinaygash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Employees Provident Fund Organisation, on instructions, submitted that the particulars that were submitted by the petitioner on 12.12.2024 are also found to be not sufficient and some more particulars are required.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would submit all the particulars as required by the respondent No.2 in the prescribed form within a period of two weeks.

6. In the light of the above, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner herein to submit all the particulars to the respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on submission of the same, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks thereafter. No costs.

30.04.2025 NCC :

Yes / No Index :

Yes / No Internet :

Yes / No krk

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.

krk 30.04.2025