IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WA.No. 1672 of 2003() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.1793/2003 Dated 08/04/2003 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5: ------------------------------ 1. CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, REP. BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, BUSINESS PART OFFICE, 25 SHIVAJI MARG, NEW DELHI 110 015. 2. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.4. 3. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) SUN REGIONAL OFFICE, 36/68 5A, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR, 17. 4. ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER(PENSION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, P.F. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 & 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. JOSEPH MATHEW, RETIRED MANAGER (ENVIRONMENT) HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., MULLAKKERIL HOUSE, P.O.CHEMMANATHU KARA, VAIKOM. 2. C.SETHUMANDAHAVAN, RTD.SENIOR PLANT MANAGER, HINDUSTRAN NEWS PRINT LTD., MINI VILLA, NANDANAM, UDAYMPEROOR, VAIKOM. 3. P.K.VASUDEVAN, RTD. ASSISTANT MANAGER, (FORESTRY) HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD., VINCI COTTAGE KLAKLCKAL, VAIKOM. WA.1672/03 4. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINSTRYOF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR, ACGSC SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR FOR R1-3 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASGI FOR R4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.A.NO.1672 OF 2003 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Writ petitioners retired from service from the Hindhusthan News Print Limited at a time when they were working in Managerial capacities. They were covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Family Pension scheme 1971 was applicable to the petitioners until the new Pension Scheme of 1995 came into force with effect from 16.11.1995. Petitioners had only 16 to 18 years service at the time of their retirement. At the time of retirement, they were sanctioned pension taking into account only the service they had after the pension scheme came into force, that is, 1995. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment found that they are entitled to get pension as per Paragraph 12(5) of the Employees' Pension W.A.1672/03 2 Scheme 1995. Paragraph 12 of the above scheme reads as follows: 12. Monthly Members Pension:- (1) A member shall be entitled to- (a) superannuation pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years; (b) retirement pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years; (c) short service pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more but less than 20 years. (2) In the case of a new entrant the amount of monthly superannuation pension or retiring pension, as the case may be, shall be computed in accordance with the following factors, namely:- Pensionable Salary x Pensionable Service Monthly Members Pension = ___________________________________ 70 (3) In the case of an employee [who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971] and who has not attained the age of 48 years on the 16th November, 1995; Superannuation/retirement/short service pension shall be equal to the aggregate of- W.A.1672/03 3 (a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of pensionable service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or Rs.635/- per month whichever is more; [(b) past service pension benefit shall be as given below: The past service benefit payable on completion of 58 years of age on 16.11.1995. Years of Salary upto Salary more than past service Rs.2,500/- per month Rs.2,500/- per month (1) (2) (3) (i) Upto 11 years 80 85 (ii) More than 11 years 95 105 but upto 15 years (iii) More than 15 years 120 135 but less than 20 years (iv) Beyond 20 years 150 170 Subject to a minimum of Rs.800/- per month provided the past service is 24 years. If the aggregate service of the member is less than 24 years, the pension and the benefits commuted as above shall be reduced proportionately subject to a minimum of Rs.450/- per month.] [c) On completion of the age of 58 years after 16.11.1995, the benefit under column (2) or column (3) above, as the case may be, shall be multiplier by the factor W.A.1672/03 4 given in Table B-corresponding to the period between 16.11.1995 and date of attainment of age 58 to arrive at past service pension payable]; (4) In the case of an employee [who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971] and has attained the age of 48 years but less than 53 years on the 16th November, 1995, the superannuation/retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of- (a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or Rs.438/- per month whichever is more; (b) past service benefit as provided in sub- paragraph (3) subject to a minimum of Rs.600/- per month provided the past service is 24 years. Provided further that if it is less than 24 years, the pension payable and the past service benefits taken together shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum of Rs.325/- per month. (5) In the case of an employee [who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971] and who has attained the age of 53 years or more on the 16th November, 1995, the superannuation/retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of:- (a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 per month or Rs.335/- per month whichever is more; (b) past service benefits provided in sub-paragraph (3) subject to the minimum of Rs.500/- per month W.A.1672/03 5 provided the past service is 24 years. Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefits shall be proportionately lesser but subject to a minimum of Rs.265/- per month.” After holding that petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of pension under paragraph 12(5) of the Act, the learned Judge held that they should be paid aggregate of the pension payable under 'a' and 'b'. The appellant Central Board of Trustees and others accepted the contention that they are entitled to get pension under paragraph 12(5). But according to them, pension payable under sub paragraph 'a' to paragraph 12(5) will be reduced if the number of years of service is less than 24 years. The above Section reads otherwise. The opening words of paragraph 5 states that pension was payable to those who attain the age of 53 years or more on 16th November, 1995 will be equal to the aggregate of 'a' and 'b'. A plain reading of the scheme shows that an employee who attains the age of 53 or more on 16th November, 1995, will be entitled to get aggregate of the pension mentioned in 'a' and 'b' of paragraph 12(5) and a minimum pension payable per month in sub clause 'a' is Rs.335/- . Sub clause 'b' shows that apart from the above, employees are W.A.1672/03 6 entitled to past service benefits, if the service is 24 years, minimum service benefits payable is Rs.500/- per month. Proviso to sub clause 'b' provides that if the service is less than 24 years, past service benefits will be reduced proportionately subject to the minimum of Rs.265/- per month. Therefore, apart from the minimum pension payable under clause 'a', petitioners will be entitled to service benefits which is also a minimum of Rs.265/- as mentioned above. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, there will be no meaning in sub clause 'a' that pension will be fixed as Rs.335/-. But by clarification of a statutory scheme, the benefits granted under the scheme cannot be reduced. On a reading of paragraph 12(5), we see that there is no ambiguity in the words. The words are very clear. The aggregate of the pension mentioned under 'a' and 'b' should be paid and minimum pension payable under 'a' is Rs.335/- and for service benefits under 'b' is Rs.265/-. But if the service is 24 or more years, it will be Rs.500/- per month and proportionately it will be reduced. If the additional statement filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge is accepted even the minimum pension will be denied to the applicants. We also note that this is a welfare legislature. Contributions were paid by the W.A.1672/03 7 employee as well as the employer and it is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that before 1995 Scheme was introduced, they were contributing as per the scheme and they were contributing more than Rs.600/- per month. Their salary was very high but for the purpose of calculation of pension, there is limit upto Rs.5,000/- and equal contribution is also donated by the employer. We are of the view that a reading of paragraph 12(5) requires no other interpretation than that is adopted by the learned Single Judge. We see no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment, and hence, this writ appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 4th August, 2008