IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 375 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.34342/2004 Dated 24/03/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 IN WPC: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER I, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, DELHI-110 052. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. BY DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN,SC,EPF ORGANISATION RESPONDENT(S): WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN WPC: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.RAMAKRISHNAN, METTUMPURATH HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 663 DY.MANAGER, M.M.T.C.LTD, (RETD.). 2. MMTC LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, SCOPE COMPLEX, 7, INSTITUTIONAL AREA, LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, MMTC LIMITED, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, JOS TRUST BUILDING, POST BOX NO.3597, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 035. BY ADV. SRI. M.N.MATHEW, SC SRI. D.PEETHAMBARAN,SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- R.P No.375 of 2011 in W.P(C) No.34342/2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011. O R D E R The writ petition was filed claiming the benefits of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and was disposed of by judgment dtd.24.3.2011 upholding the writ petitioners entitlement. 2. According to the petitioners herein, the respondent/writ petitioner retired from service on 31.7.1992 and therefore, he could not claim the benefits of the said Scheme, which is ordered to be given as per the judgment. 3. This contention is sought to be supported relying on Clause 6 of the 1971 Scheme. In my view Clause 6 of the Scheme will become applicable not on the retirement alone, but only on withdrawal of the benefits or on a pensioner becoming entitled to withdraw the benefits. In this case, admittedly, the benefits were withdrawn by the petitioner R.P No.375 of 2011 2 only on 27.9.1993. If that be so his case falls within Clause 6(c) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, as found in the judgment. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the review petition and it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC ab JUDGE