← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/28548/2009closed

P.K.Gopalakrishnan & Others v. Union Of India & Others

2015-09-15Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/24TH BHADRA, 1937 ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------------------

1. P.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, RETIRED PLANT ENGINEER (CIVIL) HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAKKAL, PERUMPILLY MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

2. V.J.VARGHESE, RETIRED MANAGER (MECHANICAL) HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR NOW RESIDING AT VALLAYIL HOUSE, T.V.PURAM, VAIKOM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

3. RAJAGOPALAN V., RETIRED MANAGER (MECHANICAL) HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR NOW RESIDING AT VARSHA (PANNIMATTOM), T.V.PURAM VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

4. P.SANKARANKUTTY, RETIRED SENIOR PLANT ENGINEER (INSTRUMENTATION) HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR NOW RESIDING AT REMA MANDIR, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682315.

5. G.GOVINDANKUTTY, RETIRED EXECUTIVE PRIVATE SECRETARY HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., NEWSPRINT NAGAR NOW RESIDING AT LAKSHMI NIVAS, NEAR KATTUNGAL, TEMPLE PACHALAM, COCHIN-12.

ADDL.P6: RADHA K W/O. RAJAGOPALAN V VARSHA, TV PURAM P O VAIKOM KOTTAYAM 686 606 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 11.10.2013 IN I.A 13931/2010 BY ADVS.SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR

RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR GOVT.OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.

2. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, REP.BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BUSINESS PARK OFFICE 25 SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 015.

3. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.

4. ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION), SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHANIDHI BHAVAN KOTTAYAM.

5. ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION), SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHANIDHI BHAVAN KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.

R,R1 BY ADV. SRI N NAGARESH,ASST.SOLICITOR R,R2-5 BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. R,R2-5 BY ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-092015, ALONG WITH WPC. 34622/2009, WPC. 35640/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER IN FAVOUR OF 2ND PETITIONER EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD PETITIONER EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH PETITIONER EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH PETITIONER EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE GRANT OF EMPLOYEES MONTHLY PENSION UNDER THE EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME 1995 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF WA 1672/2003 DT 6.8.2008 EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION ORDER DT 26.11.97 EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION ORDER DT 11.1.2000 EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION ORDER DT 11.6.2001 EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION ORDER DT 13..11.2001 EXT.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC 26122/09 DT 16.9.2009 RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE jma

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) Nos.28548 of 2009, 34622 of 2009 & 35640 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners in the above writ petitions claim benefits of Ext.P4 judgment which interpreted the provisions under Clause 12(5) of the Employees Pension Scheme , 1995 to find that the aggregate under (a) and (b) subject to the minimum provided thereunder has to be paid to the petitioners. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Organization however, would point out that paragraph 12 of the Pension Scheme, 1995 stood amended by GSR 431(E) dated 15.06.2007 substituting sub-paragraph (1) to (7) with retrospective effect from 16.11.1995. In such circumstance, writ petition would stand closed, however, leaving open the remedy of the petitioners to challenge the amended provisions if so advised.

Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge