1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD).No.12927 of 2011 R.Kaliamoorthy : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Office of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, P.B. No.588, Sree Complex, 'D' Block, 18, Madurai Road, Tiruchirapalli-8. 2.The Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, P.B. No.588, Sree Complex, 'D' Block, 18, Madurai Road, Tiruchirapalli-8. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to grant loan as applied for by the petitioner by his application dated 05.09.2011. For Petitioner : M/s.S.K.Mani ORDER The petitioner R.Kaliamoorthy has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to grant loan as applied for by the petitioner by his application dated 05.09.2011. 2. Heard Mr.S.K.Mani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was employed in Thiru Arooran Sugars as an Accounts Clerk, has become a member in the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 as provided under Section 6A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Further, it is argued that having become a member of the pension scheme, the petitioner is entitled to get advance from the pension payment for medical purpose under the Employees Pension Scheme. While so, the petitioner after reaching the age of superannuation retired from the service and now he has attained 60 years of age, unfortunately, he had to undergo an operation as he has suffered with a problem in his spinal column. Therefore, to meet the medical expenses, the petitioner has applied for loan on 05.09.2011 to the first respondent. But, the request of the petitioner was denied. The said denial to grant loan is contrary to the provisions of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. 4. As per the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed by the petitioner on 05.09.2011 itself is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 illegal, not tenable and not maintainable in terms of the definition clause given to the word "member" which is given as under: (ix) "member" means an employee who becomes a member of the Employees' Pension Fund in accordance with the provisions of this scheme; [Explanation.-An employee shall cease to be the member of the Pension Fund from the date of attaining 58 years of age or from the date of vesting admissible benefits under the Scheme, whichever is earlier] Admittedly, the petitioner has not only retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation and now he has attained 60 years of age, hence, he is no more a member eligible to get loan. In that view of the matter, the rejection of the petitioner's application for loan by the first respondent is in accordance with law and this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Office of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, P.B. No.588, Sree Complex, 'D' Block, 18, Madurai Road, Tiruchirapalli-8. 2.The Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, P.B. No.588, Sree Complex, 'D' Block, 18, Madurai Road, Tiruchirapalli-8. +1. CC to Mr.S.K.Mani, Advocate, SR.No. 39607 srm Order made in W.P.(MD).No.12927 of 2011 Dated:- 14.11.2011 TR :28.11.2011: 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/