EPS 95 Pensioners Latest News: Landmark Judgement of Kerala High Court - dated 30.7.2020 for FCI Employees

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.14475 OF 2019(H)

Search EPS 95 Higher pension List Below: 

PETITIONERS:

1.  M.HABUSA BEEVI,
   HOUSE NO.112,VRINDAVAN NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA P.O.,
   KOLAM-691 008.
2. T.LALITHABAI AMMA,
   KUTHIRAKKARANTEYYATHU, VELCHAL, VELLIKKUNNAM P.O.,
   MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690 571.
3. 3 C.C.RATHEESAN,
   CHANDRAMANGALAM, PUTHENTHURA P.O., NEENDAKARA,
   KOLLAM-691 582.
4. P.K.VIJAYANKUTTY,
   SOUPARNIKA, ELANGAMANGALAM, ENATHU P.O.,
   PATHANAMTHITTA-691 526.
5. S.K.SUPRIYA,
   MURIYAKKAT,ELAMKUNNAPPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 503.
   BY ADV. SRI.C.R.JAYAKUMAR

RESPONDENTS:

1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
   REPRESENTED BY CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
   (PPO) BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 066
2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
   EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,EXEM I & II,
   NO.37, ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI-699 914.
3. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
   EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI
   BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.
4. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
   EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI
   BHAVAN, KOLLAM-691 001.
5. AREA MANAGER,
   FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE,
   KOLLAM-691 001
6. AREA MANAGER,
   FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT
   OFFICE,ERNAKULAM-682 011.

R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH
R5-R6 BY SMT.RADHIKA P GOPINATH, SC, FOOD
CORPORATION OF INDIA

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of July 2020

The petitioners, who are retired employees of the Food Corporation of India, by this writ petition, are claiming the following reliefs: 

1. Declare that the petitioners are also entitled for the higher pension as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No.33051/2016 and connected batch matters. 
2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 5 and 6 to forward Ext.P1 to P5 requests for higher pension to the 2nd respondent after due processing in a time bound manner.
3. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to act upon Ext.P1 to P5 in a time bound manner from the date of receipt of the same from the 5th and 6th respondents and to disburse higher pension to the petitioners.
4. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 to 4 to allow the petitioners to remit the excess contribution they are liable to remit for higher pension. 

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are undisputedly covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and they are beneficiaries of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 framed thereunder. The petitioners retired from the service of the Food Corporation of India on different dates. But they are not awarded the benefits of the Scheme on the basis of the actual salary drawn by them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the subject matter is covered by the judgment of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in P. Sasikumar and others vs. Union of India and others (ILR 2019 (1) Kerala 614) and also of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.10401 of 2015 dated 31.03.2015 and in W.P.(C) No.20557 of 2019 dated 24.06.2020. It is reported that the judgment of this Court in 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have already submitted necessary applications to the concerned authority for payment of pension in terms of the judgments of this Court and petitioners will remit excess contribution if any. It is also 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, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees' Provident Fund Organization submitted that a Review Petition has already been filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Government of India has also preferred a Special Leave Petition and it is directed to be fixed for hearing along with the Review Petition. With this, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 

5. I have carefully considered the submissions 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 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 the directions given in the aforesaid decisions.

In the above view of the matter, this writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses (i) to (iv). The respondents are directed to do the needful within a period of eight months.Needless to mention that petitioners shall remit necessary contribution with other charges including interest if any assessed by the Authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that consequent action shall be subject to any proceedings pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Sd/-
A.M.BADAR
JUDGE

Click Here to Download Kerala High Court Judgement Copy