IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 22777 of 2003(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.C.PAUL, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, KUTTOOR P.O., THRISSUR-13. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, P.F. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.14.3.96 FROM THE RESPONENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2: TRUE COPY OF CHALAN DT.8.4.96 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT. P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.14.11.02 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P4: TRUE COPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.3.7.03 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.22777 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order whereunder he is called upon to refund the pension amount of Rs.55,466/- received by him under the Employees' Pension Scheme of the Employees' Provident Fund organisation. I heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel appearing for Employees' Provident Fund organisation. 2. Petitioner admittedly did not join the pension scheme which came into force on 1.3.1971. In fact, an option was available to the petitioner to join the pension scheme and make contribution of a percentage of wages to the Pension fund along with the employer. However, neither the employer nor the petitioner made contribution because petitioner did not opt for the pension scheme. However, after retirement and after collecting pensionary benefits including Provident Fund, the petitioner applied for getting the pension. The Assistant Accounts Officer from the office of the respondent, however, granted 2 pension to the petitioner conditionally on payment of arrears of contribution payable by the employer and employee for 25 years. Copy of the letter issued by the Assistant Accounts Officer is produced as Ext.P1. The respondent started making payment of pension based on Ext.P1. However, in July 2003 it was found that the pension granted was irregular and therefore, petitioner was called upon to repay the amount vide Ext.P5 which is under challenge in this O.P. 3. It is a conceded position that Ext.P1 is without any authority as the Pension Scheme does not authorise a retired employee to request for pension on payment of arrears of contribution in lumpsum. Ext.P1 is an irregular favour shown by an employee in the respondent's organisation and it is very strange that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner approved payment based on Ext.P1. In any case since pension was irregularly granted, cancellation of the pensionary benefit is perfectly in order. However, since the granting of payment of ineligible benefits is due to the mistake of the respondent-organisation, I feel petitioner cannot be called upon to pay interest. Besides this, petitioner has remitted Rs.16,450/- for getting pension which is liable 3 to be adjusted against the demand. The W.P. is therefore, allowed in part by reducing the amount to the difference between Rs.55,466/- and the amount paid by the petitioner i.e. Rs.16,450/-, which the petitioner is directed to pay before 30th September, 2009. If payment is made as above, no interest or other charges should be recovered from the petitioner. However, if payment is not made within the time stated above, respondents are free to recover the amount with interest. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms