EPS 95 Pensioners Good News: Kerala High Court landmark Judgment dt. 14.7.2020 – Exempted

One more landmark judgement of Kerala High Court is shared with you dated 14 July 2020 in r/o an EXEMPTED Establishment i.e. HMT Machine Tools Ltd for your information.
EPS 95 Higher Pension Cases Latest Update from Supreme Court Search Below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942
WP(C).No.20551 OF 2015(T)

PETITIONERS: (1 to 50)

RESPONDENT:

1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRSENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI - 110001
2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION (EPFO) BHAVISHA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM PALACE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004
3. THE SUB REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER BHAVISHA NIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1806, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006
4. THE HMT MACHINE TOOLS LTD REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, H.M.T. COLONY.P.O., KALAMASSERY, PIN:683503
5. THE CHAIRMAN, PROVIDENT FUND TRUST OF EMPLOYEES FOR H.M.T. TOOLS LTD, H.M.T.COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY, PIN:683503

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of July 2020

Petitioners are employees of the 4th respondent - The Hindustan Machine Tools Limited, working in various cadres and they are covered under the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. They are members of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 framed under the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952. Their contribution along with employer's contribution to the Provident Fund is made on the basis of the actual salary without limiting the contribution on the basis of fixed salary of Rs.6500/- per month.

2. Petitioners are praying for following reliefs in this petition.

• (i) To call for the records relating to Ext.P1 and to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 2 to 5 to collect Pension contribution towards the Employee's Pension Scheme of the Petitioners on the basis of actual salary drawn by them in terms of Proviso to clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme 1995 from the date of joining the +Pension Scheme and to direct the 3rd respondent to furnish joint application expressing the consent.
• (ii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get pension contribution towards the Employees Pension Scheme of the Petitioners on the basis of actual salary drawn by them in WP(C).No.20551 OF 2015(T) 11 terms of proviso to clause 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 from the date of joining the said scheme.
• (iii) to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to transfer the interest accrued to that extent in the Provident Fund Account to the Pension account.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject matter is covered by judgments of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Sankaranarayanan N.S Vs. Union of India and others decided on 12/10/2018, P.Sasikumar and Others Vs. Union of India [ILR 2019 (1) Kerala 614], and in WP(C) No. 22087/2015 (G. Krishnan Vs. Union of India & Others) decided on 12/10/2018, and also the judgments of the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(c) No. 10401/2015, (Jayachandran.E & Others Vs. Union of India) decided on 31.03.2015, and in WP(c) NO. 20557/2019, (Balchandran K.K. and Others Vs. the Employee's Provident Fund Organization and Others) decided on 24.06.2020. It is reported that judgment of this Court in the matter of P.Sasikumar's case (supra) is already confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organization. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that case of the petitioners is exactly WP(C).No.20551 OF 2015(T) 12 identical with that of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 20557/2019 who happened to be employees of the 4th respondent. The petitioners had also approached respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for similar relief but they were told that the said judgment is not applicable to them and they should bring order of this Court for getting benefits. With this, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, as the issue is already covered by several judgments of this Court which are also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the instant petition needs to be allowed.

4. As against this, the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees' Provident Fund Organization submitted that the review petition has already been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Government of India has also preferred an SLP and it is directed to be fixed for hearing along with the Revision Petition. With this, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have carefully considered the submission advanced and also perused judgments of this Court cited above. I am of the considered opinion that the issue raised in the instant petition is squarely covered by the above cited judgments. As of now, there are concluded judgments on WP(C).No.20551 OF 2015(T) 13 the issue involved in the instant petition. Therefore, respondents are duty bound to initiate action for re-determination of the pension in the light of directions given in the aforesaid decisions. In this view of the matter, the petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) to (iv).

Respondents are directed to do the needful within a period of four months. However, the consequent action shall be subject to any proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The instant petition is accordingly disposed of.

SD/- A.M.BADAR
JUDGE

Click Here to Download Kerala High Court landmark Judgment dt. 14.7.2020