IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 OP.No. 23078 of 2001(V) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4 BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHELLAMMAYAMMA, KANNADU KIZHAKKOTHIL VEEDU, KANNIMOL CHERY, KAVANAD P.O., SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 2. CONSUMEWR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM. 3. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (KOLLAM) FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 ORDER ON CMP 37778 OF 2001 IN OP 23078 OF 2001 DISMISSED 20.8.2009 SD/-C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.9 SHOWING THE FIRST RESPONDENT HAD JOINED THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SHCMEME 1952 AT THE AGE OF 42 ON 1.8.1974 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.99 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.4.2001 IN OP 612/99 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2001 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.7.2001 IN APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2001 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- O.P. NO. 23078 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT O.P. is filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner challenging the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and State Commission wherein both the authorities held that respondent is entitled to pension under EPF Scheme of 1995. Th dispute is only with regard to age of the respondent which according to the petitioner is not correctly found by the District Forum as well as State Commission. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that declaration filed by the employer in statutory form was that respondent was aged 42 years as on 1.8.1974. However, the very same employer who furnished the form issued termination certificate to the respondent stating that she retired at the age of 58 on 31.12.1995. Petitioner has no dispute that if respondent retired on attaining 58 years on 31.12.1995, she was eligible for pension under the 1995 Scheme. However, the specific case of the petitioner is that employer should have colluded with the respondent in the change of age and date of 2 birth of the respondent, and the termination certificate cannot be acted upon. 2. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and after going through the orders produced in this Court, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner because two authorities have after taking evidence concurrently found that the employer's certificate is acceptable. Further there is nothing to indicate that the declaration furnished by the employer pertaining to the age of the respondent was correct or mistake if any therein was allowed to be corrected by the employer later. It is also to be noted that respondent was a manual worker and probably she may be an uneducated person. Therefore her employer might have allowed her to correct mistakes with regard to age declared by the employer to the petitioner. In any case respondent remained in service based on the certificate issued by the employer upto 31.12.1995 and she retired on that date. District Forum as well as State Commission rightly upheld the claim of pension of the respondent. O.P. is accordingly dismissed directing the petitioner to immediately clear the entire arrears of pension due to the respondent 3 after tracing her wherever she is and file compliance report in this Court within three months from now. Petitioner will continue to pay pension thereafter on due dates. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4