IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 36573 of 2002(D) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. B.AISHA W/O. LATE IMBICHI KOYA, BABURIMOTHAL, SYNA MANZIL, P.O.MAYANAD, CALICUT (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE A.IMBICHI KOYA) 2. K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. LATE K.RAMAN NAIR, POLLARIPARAMBIL VEEDU, P.O.PERUVAYAL, CALICUT. 3. P.GANGADHARAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. LATE NAYADI, PULIYAPOTTAMMAL VEEDU, P.O. CHOOLOOR, CALICUT. 4. E.DAMODARAN NAIR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, THAYYITHAZHATHU VEEDU, P.O. PERUVAYAL, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. CENTRAL PRIOVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 14-BIKAJICAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI-61 3. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO. 1806, CALICUT-6 4. GWALIYOR REYONS, EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE MULTI PURPOSE SOCIETY, MAVOOR, CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHIR, SC, P.F. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR, ADDL.CGSC SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO.36573/02. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.8.1.98 BY R3. P2. COPY OF THE LETER DTD.19.2.98 BY R3 TO R4. P3. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.20.4.98 TO R3. P4. COPY OF THE ORDER TO THE DECEASED HUSBAND OF P1 FOR PAYMENT OF PENSION. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.5.3.99 BY R3. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.17.6.99 BY R3 TO THE COUNCIL FOR THE PETITIONER. P7. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.3.7.2002 BY R3. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.36573 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is the legal heir of late Sri.Imbichi Koya who was an employee of the 4th respondent society and was covered under the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme. Petitioners 2 to 4 are retied employees of the very same society. Said Imbichi Koya and other petitioners retired from service on 31.5.1997, 20.9.1996, 30.6.1997 and 30.5.1996 respectively. When the Employees Provident Fund Pension, 1995 was introduced, the society and its employees requested the third respondent to prepone the date of coverage to 1.3.1971. The petitioners would contend that accepting such request, the date of coverage was fixed as 1.3.1971 and accordingly, the petitioners were being paid pension under the Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme. However, by Ext.P5 order dated 5.3.1999, payment of pension as suddenly stopped after a period of two years. To a notice through the Advocate of the petitioners, Ext.P6 reply was given by the third respondent stating that for o.p.36573/02 2 preponing the date of coverage to 1.3.1971, the society was directed to comply with certain directions which have not been complied with and therefore, stoppage of pension is perfectly valid. Thereafter, pursuant to the orders of this court in O.P.No.18381/99, Ext.P7 detailed order was also passed to the same effect. Exts.P5 and P7 are under challenge before me in this writ petition. 2. The petitioners would contend that denial of pension to them is arbitrary and unsustainable. According to them, after having started paying pension, the third respondent could not have validly stopped the same to the detriment of the petitioners. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by third respondent in which he has produced Ext.R3(a) letter dated 19.2.1999 directing the president of the society to comply with certain directions contained therein as conditions for preponing the date of coverage to 1.3.1971. The third respondent has categorically stated in the counter affidavit that since the society has not complied with those directions, the date of coverage still remains as 31.3.1989 and therefore, 1st petitioner's husband and the other petitioners would not have the minimum qualifying service o.p.36573/02 3 for payment of pension. He therefore, supports Exts.P5 and P7. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. No reply affidavit has been filed to controvert Ext.R3 (a) and the averment in the counter affidavit that the directions in Ext.R3(a) have not been complied with and therefore, the date of coverage has not been preponed to 1.3.1971 to enable the husband of the 1st petitioner and the other petitioners to become eligible for pension. That being so, it is clear that the late husband of the 1st petitioner and the other petitioners do not have the qualifying service for becoming eligible for pension. As such, I do not find any merit in this original petition. However, the pension already paid shall not be recovered from the petitioners. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE o.p.36573/02 4 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================ O.P.No.36573 of 2002-D ================ J U D G M E N T 17th January, 2008