IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 35066 of 2007(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, VRINDAVAN, BHAGAVATHI NAGAR, MUDAPPALLUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI. VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF RPFC, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, ACC. LTD., CEMENT HOUSE, 121, MAHARSHI KARVE ROAD, MUMBAI. 3. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF RPFC, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F. SRI.U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.P.V.LOHITHAKSHAN SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA SMT.UMA GOPINATH SRI.DEVIDAS.U.K SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SGI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 35066 of 2007(Y) A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.12.2006 WITH POSTAL RECEIPT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. Acd S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.35066 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an employee, of the 2nd respondent from 21.8.70 to 30.6.05, who retired from service on 30.6.05. According to the petitioner he is eligible for pension as per the employees’ pension scheme under Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act which according to the petitioner has not been paid. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 to the effect that steps are being taken for calculation of the amounts due to the petitioner as pension and the same would be completed expeditiously. In fact it is stated that the amounts due has been forwarded to the appropriate bank where the petitioner has S.B. Account. This submission is recorded and the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise his grievance, if any subsisting, appropriately in future. I also record the contention of the counsel for the 2nd W.P.(c) No.35066/07 2 respondent that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to deal with this matter. It would be open to the 2nd respondent to raise this contention appropriately, if necessary, in future. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd