IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WA.No. 2259 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.14697/2006 DATED 29/09/2006 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 3/685A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR, KOCHI. 2. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, 3/685A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1895, KALOOR, KOCHI. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN-, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- SUBINISA KADERKUTTY, W/O.LATE M.KADERKUTTY, KOONJELI HOUSE, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= W.A. No. 2259 of 2006 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The husband of the respondent herein, late K.M.Kaderkutty, was a member of Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971. After his death, respondent was being paid pension. 2. However, it appears that the respondent submitted an application seeking pension under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1995 also; when the said new scheme came into vogue. The claim was allowed and the respondent was paid pension under the 1995 scheme with retrospective effect. 3. Later, the appellants noticed that the respondent had suppressed the fact that she had been receiving pension under the 1971 Scheme. Therefore, recovery proceedings were initiated by the appellants against her. 4. The said action was challenged by the respondent WA 2259/2006 2 before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.14697 of 2006. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to deduct the overpaid amounts from the monthly pension due to the respondent at the rate of Rs.100/-per month till the entire liability was discharged. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal. 5. When this appeal is taken up for consideration, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the excess amount paid to the respondent has already been recovered and therefore, in effect the appeal has become infructuous. The above submission is recorded. 6. However, it is made clear that respondent will be entitled to get the family pension at the appropriate rate, as provided under the Scheme in future. The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn.