IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 584 of 2004() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.19244/1998 Dated 26/08/2002 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.N.1016, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MATHEW PUTHUVAYALIL, VELLAD P.O., ALAKODE VIA., KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA. 2. THE UNION OF MINISTER FOR LABOUR SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. ADV. SMT.BINDU MOHANDAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.939/2004 IN WA NO. 584/ 2004 DISMISSED. 1.10.2009 SD/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR , JUDGE. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE, C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A. No.584 of 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated, the Ist day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The Writ Appeal is filed by the Provident fund Commissioner challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring eligibility for the father of the deceased employee to get pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. 2. We have heard the senior counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. Even though the counsel submitted that the first respondent/writ petitioner was no more and his legal heirs are not impleaded before proceeding with the matter, we do not consider it necessary to implead the legal heirs because we do not propose to interfere with the judgment by which the Single Judge directed to W.A.No.584/04 -:2:- grant of pension to the father of the deceased. Admittedly, the deceased employee was unmarried and he had not nominated anybody for getting pension in the event of his death under the employees pension scheme. In the first place, father and mother are covered under the definition of family members with effect from 6.3.99. Therefore, the first respondent and, on his death, his wife is entitled to get pension from 6.3.99 onwards. The employee concerned died on 15.11.95 and the question to be considered is whether for the period after death and prior to the amendment, his father or mother are entitled to the pension. During life time if the employee had nominated his mother or father, such person would have got the pension, no matter, father and mother were covered only with effect from 6.3.99. It may be an omission on the part of the unmarried deceased person to nominate anybody to receive pension on his death. We are of the view that subsequent inclusion of father and mother is only making up an omission in the original W.A.No.584/04 -:3:- scheme. The denial of pension, therefore, is only technical and in our view, the amendment is only clarificatory. Therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal with a direction to the appellant to give arrears of pension to the wife of first respondent, but without interest, if it is not done so far, without any delay. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- W.A.No.584/04 -:4:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..