IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 OP.No. 1350 of 2001(I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, REGIONAL OFFICER, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR I.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. SMT. BHARATHI, W/O. LAKSHMANAN, CHERUVILA VEEDU, PEROOR, T.K.M. COLLEGE P.O., KARIKODE, KOLLAM. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM. 3. THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN FOR R1 SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP.No. 1350 of 2001 ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.2260 OF 2001 IN O.P.NO.2001 CLOSED. 9.2.2009 SD/- S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. EXT.P1: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN O.P.(O) 425/99 DT.31.8.99 FILED BY R1 BEFORE R2. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER DT. 25.7.2000 IN O.P.NO.425/99 OF R2. EXT.P3: COPY OF NOTICE DT. 11.12.2000 FROM THE GOVT. OF KERALA TO THE PETITONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER DT. 6.11.2000 IN APPEAL NO.985/2000 OF THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1: COPY OF THE ORDER N.985/2000 DTD 6.11.2000. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.1350 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The mighty Provident Fund Organisation is fighting a poor illiterate member of the Employees Provident Fund to deny pension claimed her under the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 on the ground that she attained 60 years of age prior to 1.4.93 as against the petitioner's claim that she attained the age of 60 years only on 31.12.1993. The 1st respondent herein was superannuated from service on 31.12.1993 on attaining 60 years of age. The Employees' Pension Scheme came into force on 16.11.1995 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1993. All members of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Family Pension Scheme who retired from service on or after 1.4.1993 are eligible for pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995, provided they pay proportionate contributions payable for the period from 1.4.1993 to 16.11.1995. Alleging that despite being eligible for pension under the 1995 Scheme, pension has been denied to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent O.P.No.1350/2001 2 approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam by filing O.P.(Q) No.425/99. In that O.P., the Provident Fund Organisation contended that as per Form Nos.2 and 4 filed by the employer of the 1st respondent, the date of birth of the 1st respondent was given as 1.4.1932, based on which, the 1st respondent would attain 60 years of age on 1.4.1992 and since the 1st respondent attained 60 years of age prior to 1.4.1993, the 1st respondent is not eligible for pension under the 1995 Scheme. On the basis of documents produced by the respondent before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, CDRF came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent retired from service only on attaining the age of 60 years and therefore, the 1st respondent is eligible for pension. Accordingly, the Forum directed the Provident Fund Organisation to specify the contributions to be paid by the 1st respondent with interest and after receiving the contributions, the 1st respondent was directed to be registered as a member of the 1995 Scheme and pension paid to the 1st respondent accordingly. The Provident Fund Organisation challenged the same in an appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed. Those orders are under challenge before me in O.P.No.1350/2001 3 this original petition. 2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that in so far as the employer had by filing Form Nos.2 and 5 statements declaring the date of birth of the 1st respondent as 1.4.1932, the 1st respondent cannot now claim that she attained 60 years of age only on 31.12.1993. Consequently, the contention is that the 1st respondent is not eligible for pension under the 1995 Scheme. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The 1st respondent was employed by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation which is an organisation owned by the Government of Kerala. It cannot be lightly assumed that a Government Organisation would allow a person to continue in service beyond the age of superannuation. Here, one of the documents relied upon by the Forum is an order of the Managing Director of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. dated 31.12.1993, whereby the 1st respondent was superannuated from service on 31.12.1993. From the same it is clear that as per the records of the Corporation the date of superannuation of the 1st respondent was 31.12.1993. Admittedly the age of O.P.No.1350/2001 4 superannuation as per the standing orders applicable to the employees of the Corporation is 60 years. Further, the 1st respondent is admittedly an illiterate lady. When a Government Organisation certifies that the 1st respondent was retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.12.1993 neither the Forum nor this Court can discard that evidence lightly. It is relying on that evidence, the Forum had come to the conclusion that the date of superannuation of the 1st respondent is 31.12.1993. The Commission has also confirmed the same in appeal. I am not inclined to interfere with such finding of fact in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that too at the instance of the Provident Fund Organisation who is a statutory authority under a beneficial legislation enacted for the welfare of the employees like the 1st respondent herein. Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.1350/2001 5