IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17089 of 2010(I) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SELVERAJ, PROVIDENT FUND ACCOUNT NO.KR/112/2261.DIVISION NO.2,LONE TREE ESTATE, LONE TREE.P.O.,UPPUTHARA-685 505,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER(PENSION), EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,CHALAKUZHY BUILDING, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE,KOTTAYAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITOOP, S.C, E.P.F ORGANISATION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.17089 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retired employee of the Lone Tree Estate, Upputhara. The petitioner seeks correction of an error in the calculation of the number of days of service put in by him for the purpose of calculation of the pension amount due and payable to him under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. According to the petitioner, the company has committed an error in calculation of the days of break in his service. Consequently, as many as 80 days have not been taken into account while computing the break in service. The petitioner complains that the first respondent without verifying the Form-3A sent every year by the employer, which are available in his office, has deducted a total number of 471 days while calculating the pension payable to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the above is a mistake which has to be corrected. 2. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.8059 of 2010 producing Ext.P6 representation which he has submitted wpc No.17089/2010 2 before the second respondent. He prays for the issue of a direction for the consideration of Ext.P6, expeditiously. 3. I have heard Adv.Joy Thattil Ittoop who appears for the respondents. He has no objection to the representation being directed to be considered. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Ext.P5 judgment of this Court wherein a similar issue has been considered and prays for consideration of the dictum in the said case also while disposing of Ext.P6. 4. In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner set out in Ext.P6 representation in accordance with law and in the light of Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/