IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 15069 of 2005(R) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.MARY, KOLAVAYALIL HOUSE,MUTHUKAD PO, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE 6. 2. THE MANAGER, PERAMBRA ESTATE, PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, MUTHUKAD P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. FOR R1 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.15069/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 3.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PENSION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, DT. 14.12.04. P3:- COPY OF THE MEMO DT. 28.4.04 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE FORM 2 (NOMINATION FORM ) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. R1(b):- COPY OF THE 10C APPLICATION DT. 8.7.04 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No.15069/2005-R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to grant monthly pension to the petitioner under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on completion of 58 years of age on 31/12/2003, she retired from service. Subsequently, she submitted an application for pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (Ext.P2). Finally, by Ext.P3, the same stands rejected. The reason stated in Ext.P3 is that going by the office records of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, her date of birth is 01/07/1931 and as such, she had attained 60 years of age on 30/06/1991 and therefore, her family pension fund membership had been ceased on 01/07/1991. 3. The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit supporting the reason stated in Ext.P3 in rejecting the application of the petitioner. I am not referring to the detailed contentions therein. The petitioner has got a case that if an opportunity is given to the petitioner, she will be able to substantiate the plea for grant of pension and, the employer namely, the second respondent, Plantation Corporation of Kerala also will W.P.(C) No.15069/2005 -:2:- have to be heard in the matter. A similar question was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v.Bhavani [(2008) 7 SCC 111], wherein it was held that the proper evidence regarding date of birth for the purpose of computing the date of superannuation is the entry in the records of the employer and not the entry in the records of the Commissioner. 4. In the light of the fact that the petitioner is seeking grant of pension and, the denial of the same has resulted in adverse consequences, I think that she should be given a fresh opportunity in the matter along with the employer to appear before the first respondent and substantiate her grievance. Apart from that in Ext.P3 no details have been stated even though in the counter affidavit, the rejection of Ext.P3 is supported by various other reasons also. 5. Therefore, Ext.P3 is quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to conduct an enquiry and a hearing, with notice to the petitioner and the second respondent and pass fresh orders after adverting to the other contentions raised by the parties. The same shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms