Search More Supreme Court Order Below
2. SLP no. 7075 of 2014 (RPFC & anr vs Abdul Hakkim Sherief & ors) on 31.3.2016 Not available
3. SLP no. 7076 of 2014 (RPFC & anr vs M.Babu & ors) on 31.3.2016
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court committed error by misinterpreting provisions of Para 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995?
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court committed error by directing the Petitioners herein to accept the contributions to the Employees Pension Fund, 1995 on higher salary, i.e. above the statutory ceiling limit of Rs. 6500/- retrospectively?
4. SLP no. 7107 of 2014 (RPFC & anr vs AK Jayappan & ors) on 31.3.2016
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court committed error by misinterpreting provisions of Para 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995?
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court committed error by directing the Petitioners herein to accept the contributions to the Employees Pension Fund, 1995 on higher salary, i.e. above the statutory ceiling limit of Rs. 6500/- retrospectively?
5. SLP no. 7108 of 2014 (RPFC & anr vs PN Pillai & ors) on 31.3.2016
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court committed error by misinterpreting provisions of Para 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995?
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court committed error by directing the Petitioners herein to accept the contributions to the Employees Pension Fund, 1995 on higher salary, i.e. above the statutory ceiling limit of Rs. 6500/- retrospectively?
6. SLP no. 7224 of 2014 (RPFC & anr vs S.Nazir & ors) on 31.3.2016 Not available
7. SLP no. 697 of 2016 (RPFC & anr vs KJ Varkey & ors) on 31.3.2016 Not available
8. SLP no. 19954 of 2015 (RPFC & anr vs Austin Joseph & ors) on 12.7.2016
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has misinterpreted the statutory provisions of Para 11(3) of the EPS, 1995
• Whether a person, who has ceased to be the member of the Pension Fund and who has never, exercised the option of paying the contribution on salary exceeding statutory limit of Rs. 6500/- (Rs. Six thousand five hundred only), is entitled to pensionable salary on higher salary
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Kerala gravely erred in law as it failed to appreciate that a person after retirement, who had already withdrawn entire amounts from the Provident Fund Account, cannot be entitled to pensionable salary under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 on higher salary
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Kerala committed an error of law by directing the Petitioners herein to accept the contributions to the Employees’ Pension Fund, 1995 from the respondents, who had retired and withdrawn entire amounts from their Fund and ceased to be member of the Pension Fund
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Kerala erred in law by passing the impugned judgment on relying its earlier judgment in WA 1137 of 2012 wherein the employees’ had exercised their option of paying the contributions on actual higher salary during their employment and the issue was whether the authorities under Employees’ Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1956 was justified in setting a cut-off date for exercising the option whereas in the present case respondents had never exercised the option for paying contributions on actual higher salary rather they had withdrawn all the amounts from their Provident Fund Accounts and ceased to member of the Fund
• Whether the impugned judgment is not maintainable in law being against the objective and purpose of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995
For paper book of Austin Joseph case, pl. press the following link
SLP 19954 of 2015 -Unexempted - Austin Joseph
9. SLP no. 33032 of 2015 (RC Gupta & ors vs RPFC & ors) decided on 4.10.2016 • Whether or not the Hon’ble Division Bench grossly erred in holding that the reliefs granted by the Ld. Single Judge was beyond the pleadings and the prayers made in the Writ Petition when i.e. 12% on full salary was deposited by the Corporation and had to be only bifurcated under the appropriate Heads of Accounts of pension Fund Account and Provident Fund Account?
• Whether or not the Ld. Single Judge was right in holding in the face of the admission made in the pleadings by the Respondent No. 4, Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. that the amendment of 28.02.1996 in the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 remain unnoticed even by the Corporation and the Employees Provident Fund Organization which was administering the scheme and did not inform nor invited the revised options for contribution on full salary beyond the wage limit, the employees cannot be made to suffer and denied the right to correct person?
• That the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and the Pension Scheme are beneficial piece of legislation for the welfare of the employees; whether or not the Hon’ble Division Bench grossly erred in non-suiting the Writ Petitioners holding that the amendment of 28.2.1996 was gazette and the Ld. Single Judge had erroneously granted the relief?
• In view of the settled position in law by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board & ors vs C.R.Rangadhamiah & ors (reported as (1997) 6 SCC 623] and Govt. of AP vs Syed Yousuddin Ahmed [reported as (1997) 7 SCC 24] that right accrued to the employees cannot be taken away and cannot be denied because of the procedural infirmity namely the amount of employers contribution of 12% on full salary so deposited was not bifurcated in the ration of 8.33% in Pension Account and 3.66% in the Provident Fund Account; whether or not the employees can be denied the
benefit of the said contribution by the employer?
• Whether or not the bifurcation of the amount of employers contribution of 12% on full salary to be deposited in the ration of 8.33% on account of Pension Fund and 3.66% on Provident Fund Account can deprive the Petitioner employees to the accrued right of receiving pension to be calculated on the correct bifurcation as the amount was deposited on full salary since 16.11.1995?
• When the Respondents admit that the full amount has been deposited and the failure of the Respondent to invite revised options for contribution on full salary beyond the wage limit from the employees, under the amendment dt. 28.2.1996; whether or not the Provident Fund authorities in the facts stated above could reject the said demand made by the Petitioners/Respondent Corporation?
• The purpose of the Pension Scheme is not to deprive the Petitioner employees the legitimate benefit of the amount of 12% of full salary already deposited but any inaction of the Provident Organisation and on correct bifurcation of 8.33% under the Pension Fund Account and 3.66% in Employees Provident Fund Account all what was required as held by the Single Judge?
• Whether or not the Division Bench was wrong in holding that the relief granted by the Ld. Single Judge i.e. directing the Respondent to recalculate and readjust the already deposited the Employees Pension Scheme in appropriate head account was neither pleaded nor prayed for?
10. SLP no. 33033 of 2015 (RC Gupta & ors vs RPFC & ors) decided on 4.10.2016 As above in SLP no. 33032 of 2015
Some of the judgments of Kerala High Court wherein the Petitioners were retired employees and the Court had allowed them the benefit of Higher Pension and these orders have also been implemented by EPFO
a) KHC - Retired Employees - Judgment CWP 7317 of 2014 dt. 25.3.2014 - Kerala State Financial Enterprises
b) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 8854 of 2014 dt. 27.3.2014 - Kerala State Financial Enterprises
c) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 8298 of 2014 dt 5.6.2014 - Kerala State Co-op Coir Marketing Federation
d) KHC - Retired employees - judgment WPC 31844 of 2014 dt 28.11.2014 – MILMA
e) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 31857 of 2014 dt 28.11.2014 - Kerala State Co-op Coir Marketing Federation
f) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 112 of 2015 dt 6.1.2015 - Kerala Co-op Milk Marketing Federation
g) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 322 of 2015 dt 7.1.2015 - Malabar Regional Co-op Milk producers Union
h) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 449 of 2015 dt 7.1.2015 - Kerala State Co-op Coir Marketing Federation
i) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 1889 of 2015 dt 20.1.2015 - Kerala Co-op Milk Marketing Federation
j) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 5448 of 2015 dt 20.2.2015 - Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-op Milk producers Union
k) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 10401 of 2015 dt 31.3.2015 Implemented on 26.8.2016 - IL Ltd
l) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 11183 - 2015 - ORDER - 7.4.2015 - IL Ltd
m) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 11676 of 2015 dt 8.4.2015 - IL Ltd
n) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WA 2298 of 2015 dt 19.7.2017 - IL Ltd
o) KHC - Retired Employees - Judgment WPC 6333 of 2019 dt 1.3.2019 - Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd.
The above fifteen (15) judgments may be seen/ downloaded from the following link:
Download Link
• Whether a person, who has ceased to be the member of the Pension Fund and who has never, exercised the option of paying the contribution on salary exceeding statutory limit of Rs. 6500/- (Rs. Six thousand five hundred only), is entitled to pensionable salary on higher salary
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Kerala gravely erred in law as it failed to appreciate that a person after retirement, who had already withdrawn entire amounts from the Provident Fund Account, cannot be entitled to pensionable salary under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 on higher salary
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Kerala committed an error of law by directing the Petitioners herein to accept the contributions to the Employees’ Pension Fund, 1995 from the respondents, who had retired and withdrawn entire amounts from their Fund and ceased to be member of the Pension Fund
• Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Kerala erred in law by passing the impugned judgment on relying its earlier judgment in WA 1137 of 2012 wherein the employees’ had exercised their option of paying the contributions on actual higher salary during their employment and the issue was whether the authorities under Employees’ Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1956 was justified in setting a cut-off date for exercising the option whereas in the present case respondents had never exercised the option for paying contributions on actual higher salary rather they had withdrawn all the amounts from their Provident Fund Accounts and ceased to member of the Fund
• Whether the impugned judgment is not maintainable in law being against the objective and purpose of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995
For paper book of Austin Joseph case, pl. press the following link
SLP 19954 of 2015 -Unexempted - Austin Joseph
9. SLP no. 33032 of 2015 (RC Gupta & ors vs RPFC & ors) decided on 4.10.2016 • Whether or not the Hon’ble Division Bench grossly erred in holding that the reliefs granted by the Ld. Single Judge was beyond the pleadings and the prayers made in the Writ Petition when i.e. 12% on full salary was deposited by the Corporation and had to be only bifurcated under the appropriate Heads of Accounts of pension Fund Account and Provident Fund Account?
• Whether or not the Ld. Single Judge was right in holding in the face of the admission made in the pleadings by the Respondent No. 4, Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. that the amendment of 28.02.1996 in the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 remain unnoticed even by the Corporation and the Employees Provident Fund Organization which was administering the scheme and did not inform nor invited the revised options for contribution on full salary beyond the wage limit, the employees cannot be made to suffer and denied the right to correct person?
• That the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and the Pension Scheme are beneficial piece of legislation for the welfare of the employees; whether or not the Hon’ble Division Bench grossly erred in non-suiting the Writ Petitioners holding that the amendment of 28.2.1996 was gazette and the Ld. Single Judge had erroneously granted the relief?
• In view of the settled position in law by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Chairman, Railway Board & ors vs C.R.Rangadhamiah & ors (reported as (1997) 6 SCC 623] and Govt. of AP vs Syed Yousuddin Ahmed [reported as (1997) 7 SCC 24] that right accrued to the employees cannot be taken away and cannot be denied because of the procedural infirmity namely the amount of employers contribution of 12% on full salary so deposited was not bifurcated in the ration of 8.33% in Pension Account and 3.66% in the Provident Fund Account; whether or not the employees can be denied the
benefit of the said contribution by the employer?
• Whether or not the bifurcation of the amount of employers contribution of 12% on full salary to be deposited in the ration of 8.33% on account of Pension Fund and 3.66% on Provident Fund Account can deprive the Petitioner employees to the accrued right of receiving pension to be calculated on the correct bifurcation as the amount was deposited on full salary since 16.11.1995?
• When the Respondents admit that the full amount has been deposited and the failure of the Respondent to invite revised options for contribution on full salary beyond the wage limit from the employees, under the amendment dt. 28.2.1996; whether or not the Provident Fund authorities in the facts stated above could reject the said demand made by the Petitioners/Respondent Corporation?
• The purpose of the Pension Scheme is not to deprive the Petitioner employees the legitimate benefit of the amount of 12% of full salary already deposited but any inaction of the Provident Organisation and on correct bifurcation of 8.33% under the Pension Fund Account and 3.66% in Employees Provident Fund Account all what was required as held by the Single Judge?
• Whether or not the Division Bench was wrong in holding that the relief granted by the Ld. Single Judge i.e. directing the Respondent to recalculate and readjust the already deposited the Employees Pension Scheme in appropriate head account was neither pleaded nor prayed for?
10. SLP no. 33033 of 2015 (RC Gupta & ors vs RPFC & ors) decided on 4.10.2016 As above in SLP no. 33032 of 2015
Some of the judgments of Kerala High Court wherein the Petitioners were retired employees and the Court had allowed them the benefit of Higher Pension and these orders have also been implemented by EPFO
a) KHC - Retired Employees - Judgment CWP 7317 of 2014 dt. 25.3.2014 - Kerala State Financial Enterprises
b) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 8854 of 2014 dt. 27.3.2014 - Kerala State Financial Enterprises
c) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 8298 of 2014 dt 5.6.2014 - Kerala State Co-op Coir Marketing Federation
d) KHC - Retired employees - judgment WPC 31844 of 2014 dt 28.11.2014 – MILMA
e) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 31857 of 2014 dt 28.11.2014 - Kerala State Co-op Coir Marketing Federation
f) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 112 of 2015 dt 6.1.2015 - Kerala Co-op Milk Marketing Federation
g) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 322 of 2015 dt 7.1.2015 - Malabar Regional Co-op Milk producers Union
h) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 449 of 2015 dt 7.1.2015 - Kerala State Co-op Coir Marketing Federation
i) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 1889 of 2015 dt 20.1.2015 - Kerala Co-op Milk Marketing Federation
j) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 5448 of 2015 dt 20.2.2015 - Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-op Milk producers Union
k) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 10401 of 2015 dt 31.3.2015 Implemented on 26.8.2016 - IL Ltd
l) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 11183 - 2015 - ORDER - 7.4.2015 - IL Ltd
m) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WPC 11676 of 2015 dt 8.4.2015 - IL Ltd
n) KHC - Retired employees - Judgment WA 2298 of 2015 dt 19.7.2017 - IL Ltd
o) KHC - Retired Employees - Judgment WPC 6333 of 2019 dt 1.3.2019 - Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd.
The above fifteen (15) judgments may be seen/ downloaded from the following link:
Download Link
Posts
 of EPF Scheme, 1952 & Para 11(3) of EPS, 1995 had been agitated by EPFO){kind=link}
0 Comments