IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2008 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33828 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BHASKARAN, PROVIDENT FUND ACCOUNT NO. KR/112/1899,NO.11 DIV. LONE TREE ESTATE, LONE TREE P.O.,UPPUTHARA 685 505, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PENSION, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKUZHY BUILDING, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE PEERMADE TEA COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY S.K. STEPHEN, SECTION OFFICER,LONE TREE ESTATE, NOW AT KAVAKKULAM ESTATE OFFICE, FAIR FIELD P.O., ELAPPARA 685 501, IDUKKI DISTRICT. ADDL.R3 3. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, EKM. (Impleaded as per order dated 21.11.2008 in I.A.14846/2008) BY SC SMT.T.N.GIRIJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/11/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33829 OF 2008 WPC NO. 33873 OF 2008 WPC NO. 33873 OF 2008 WPC NO. 33879 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s.33828, 33879, 33873 & 33829 of 2008 -------------------- Dated this the 21st day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The issue raised in these writ petitions are common. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner. It is not necessary to issue notice to the second respondent, Management, in view of the directions which I propose to issue. 3. Pursuant to the directions issued by me, the Regional provident Fund Commissioner has been impleaded as additional third respondent. I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.33828/2008 in the first instance and the directions therein will be applicable to other cases also. 4. Petitioner is working with the second respondent W.P.(C).33828/2008 and Connected Cases 2 and had to do compulsory work for 26 days in a month. He is a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. The estate was abandoned and consequently his service ended in the year 2000. It seems that when the petitioner was in service, second respondent segregated contributions and regularly made remittance to the Provident Fund. On retirement, petitioner requested for computation of his pension and getting benefits under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. His grievance is that when calculations were made, a total number of 2068 days were deducted from the total service. This resulted in fixation of pension at a meager amount of Rs.669/-. According to the petitioner, second respondent committed mistake in preparing the certificate of break in service showing the number of days of break in service deducting the total number of 2068 days from the total service. 5. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the total number of days in service, and break in W.P.(C).33828/2008 and Connected Cases 3 service, were earlier calculated on the basis of the statement forwarded by the first respondent which was later acknowledged to be erroneous. If that be so, there must be a re-computation of the total length of service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, and this should be done on a re-consideration by the first respondent of Ext.P2. I think it is appropriate that higher placed official like the third respondent reconsiders this issue at this stage. 6. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the total length of services of the petitioners with the second respondent, and re-calculate the break in service if any. This shall be done on the basis of Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) s.33828, and 33873, Ext.P5 in W.P.(C).33879 and Ext.P8 in W.P.(C).33829/2008. Needful shall be done, after hearing the petitioners also, if necessary, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy W.P.(C).33828/2008 and Connected Cases 4 of this judgment. It is made clear that the pension for which the petitioners are eligible, must be recomputed on the completion of the process aforementioned and arrears shall also be disbursed without any further delay. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs