IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 OP.No. 10308 of 2002(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SMT.ANANDA AMMA, D/O.BHARATHI AMMA, RAJAMANDIRAM, PULAMANDIRAM, PULAMONMURI, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. MANAGER, C.C.W.I.C.S.(LTD.) NO:SIND (Q) 346, CHENGAMANAD P.O., KOTTARAKARA-691 577. 3. THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE, KOTTARAKKARA. 4. THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1, KOTTARAKKARA AS PRECIDING OFFICER OF THE LOK ADALATH CONDUCTED BY THE LEGAL SERVICE COMMITTEE. ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R1 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No.10308 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT This original petition is remaining defective for want of service of notice to second respondent. As I feel that this original petition can be disposed of in favour of the respondents, notice to second respondent is dispensed with. 2. This original petition under Section Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order in so far as it directs payment of commutation of pension to the first respondent and to direct respondents 3 and 4 to consider Ext.P5 review petition filed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation with its Regional office at Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The first respondent was an employee under the second respondent establishment ( C.C.W.I.C.S Ltd., Chengamanad , Kottarakkara) covered by the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions O.P.No.10308/2002 Page numbers Act 1952. The first respondent was an employee under the second respondent from 06/05/1999. The first respondent had withdrawn her provident fund accumulation on 9/8/1999. She applied for the pension under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 on medical ground in September 1999 which was rejected by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ( Pension) Kerala at Thiruvananthapuram holding that disablement occurred after leaving service. Thereafter first respondent filed a petition before the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Kottarakkara. Ext.P1 is the copy of the said petition which was numbered as A.P.No.96/2000. The third respondent is the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Kottarakkara and fourth respondent is the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Kottarakkara who acted as the presiding office of the Lok Adalat conducted by Legal Service Committee. The third respondent directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to reexamine the case. As directed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the first respondent appeared before the Medical Board constituted by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The Medical Board certified that the first respondent is permanently O.P.No.10308/2002 Page numbers disabled and the disablement occurred while the first respondent was in service. On the basis of the medical certificates of the said Board, the first respondent was sanctioned disablement pension at the rate of Rs. 214/- per month from 7/5/1999 vide PPO No. 21242. A statement to this effect was filed before the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Kottarakkara by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ( Pension), Kerala. The Enforcement Officer representing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has also made submission before the Taluk Legal Service Committee that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was being sent as commutation value which was endorsed on the file. Ext.P2 is the copy of the said statement. Thereafter, Taluk Legal Service Committee passed Ext.P2 order on 8/2/2001 ordering pension at the rate of Rs. 214/- per month from 7/5/1999 onwards and sanctioning commutation of pension at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-. Now the petitioner is challenging the said Ext.P3 order in this original petition stating that under the existing Rules, commutation facility is not applicable to permanent and total disablement pensioners. He filed Ext.P5 before the Taluk Legal Service committee to review Ext.P3 O.P.No.10308/2002 Page numbers order which was rejected by the Taluk Legal Service Committee. Petitioner prays that Ext.P3 order in so far as it directs payment of commutation of pension to first respondent may be quashed and that the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Kottarakkara may be directed to reconsider Ext.P5 review petition. 4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and first respondent. The counsel for petitioner submitted that as per Ext.P4 circular dated 30-10-1994 issued by the Provident Fund Commissioner ( Pension), commutation facility is not applicable to permanent and totally disabled pensioners, that submission made by the Enforcement Officer representing the Provident Fund Commissioner before the Taluk Legal Service Committee, Kottarakkara was a mistake and that therefore Taluk Legal Services Committee should have review its Exts.P3 order. The counsel appearing for first respondent submitted that the award passed by the Lok Adalat is a decree which cannot be challenged in a writ petition and that the petitioner has already deposited the commutation pension before the Taluk Legal Service Authority, Kottarakkara which she has withdrawn and that therefore this O.P. is O.P.No.10308/2002 Page numbers not maintainable. Under Section 21 of the Legal Service Authorities Act 1957, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of the civil court and shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute. Under the supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, such an award of the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged. The only remedy open to the petitioner would be to file a regular suit to set aside that award. This court under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 is not expected to correct each and every order passed by the lower court. Therefore, I hold that this original petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, parties shall bear their own costs. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. O.P.No.10308/2002 Page numbers