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 WP(C).No. 9259 of 2005(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B. LALITHAMMA, W/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY THOPPUVILAKOM, KAKKODE LANE, PETTAH, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II MAHARASTRA & GOA, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 341, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-51. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LIMITED, 45-47, VEER HARIMAN ROAD, MUMBAI. 3. REGIONAL PROVIDENNT FUND COMMISSIONER KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1&3 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R1 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 29.6.66 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 A COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.9.1986 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 A COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.8.1987 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 A COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24.9.1987 ISSUED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 A COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.6.1992 IN OS NO. 2513/91 EXT.P6 A COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30.9.1997 IN CMA NO. 140/94 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W. P. C NO. 9259 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Even though counsel for the first respondent requested for further time for getting instruction from Mumbai office, I do not think there is any justification for adjourning the case further because, WPC was filed in 2005 and the same pertains to a widow's eligibility for family pension under EPF Scheme, who is aged above 70 years. Further the pension though granted vide Ext.P2 was withdrawn vide Ext.P3 for the reason that employee was not paying subscription during one year prior to his death. However, it is seen that this is a case where petitioner's husband was missing and later after 7 years, he was treated as dead. Therefore obviously the provision is not capable of performance and this Court in the decision in LAKSHMIKUTTY V. UNION OF INDIA, (1993) 2 KLT 923 declared the said provision, namely, clause 28, sub-clause (2) as arbitrary and discriminatory. In the circumstances, Ext.P3 is quashed with direction to the first respondent to immediately clear the arrears of pension due to the petitioner in 2 terms of the original grant vide Ext.P2 within a period of three months from now. Petitioner will be paid pension continuously thereafter in terms of the scheme. Whatever other rights are available to the pensioner under the scheme, the same should be given to the petitioner. In other words, petitioner should be treated as if she was in the rolls of pension and all the accrued benefits granted to similar pensioners should be given to the petitioner. W.P.C. is allowed as above. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3