IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 12144 of 2004(U)
1. B.INDIRA DEVI, PADINJARE MUNNANKARA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHERTHALA TOWN SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/08/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.12144 OF 2004
------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash
Exts.P13, P16 and P17. Petitioner also seeks a direction to
the respondents to sanction and pay pension that is due to
her, without insisting on any further payment from her side.
A direction to refund an amount of Rs.4,519.50 is also
sought for.
2. Facts of the case are that, petitioner retired from
the service of the first respondent as Secretary on
30.11.1994. Subsequent to her retirement, on 14.3.1995,
Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing
Pension Scheme 1994 was introduced with effect from
3.6.1993. The petitioner who had by then received
Rs.40,844.59 as employers contribution under the
Provident Fund Scheme, opted for the pension under 1994
WP(c).No.12144/04 2
scheme.
3. Clause(18) of the pension scheme provides that every
employee of the Society to which the scheme applies shall,
subject to the provisions of the scheme be eligible for
pension under the scheme. In so far as the retired employees
are concerned, proviso states that such an employee shall be
eligible for pension only on refund of that part of employers
contribution under the Contributory Provident Fund together
with interest thereon to the pension fund before applying for
pension. On the Petitioner opting for pension, she remit an
amount of Rs.57,708/- being the employers contribution to
the PF, that she had received along with 6% interest till
13.4.2000, as per Ext.P3.
4. Subsequently, by Ext.P4, she was called upon to remit
a further sum of Rs.71,141/- which was disputed by the
petitioner by filing a representation to the first respondent.
Later Bank informed the petitioner by Ext.P5 that interest
payable is at 12% on the dues and that she should remit an
amount of Rs.58,293.90. That again was disputed by the
petitioner by filing Ext.P6 to the 2nd respondent. At that stage,
WP(c).No.12144/04 3
petitioner filed O.P.NO.19613/2001, which was disposed of
by Ext.P7 judgment, paragraph 3 of which reads as under.
“Going by the proviso to clause 18, the
moment a pensioner refunds the contribution
received from the provident fund along with
interest, the pensioner becomes eligible.
Though the pensioner was asked to remit the
money, according to the petitioner, she could
not do so. Up to 4.2.1999 the rate of interest
was 12% and thereafter the re ate of interest
was 24%. Therefore, the interest will accrue at
the respective rates of interest till the
petitioner remits the amount. As and when
the petitioner remits the Pension contribution
received at the respective rates of interest,
namely, 12% from the date of receipt of the
provident fund contribution up to 4.2.1999
and thereafter at the rate of 24% the Pension
Board will accept the amount and the pension
will be calculated and settled. It is made clear
that the petitioner needs remit only the
balance up to the date of Ext.P5. “
5. Petitioner submits that in compliance with the above
directions in the judgment, by Ext.P8(a) she remitted a
further sum of Rs.19,911/- . Even thereafter, by Ext.P9 she
was informed that her balance liability is Rs.71,353/-. That
was challenged before this court in O.P.No.26643/02 and
pursuant to the interim order passed in that Original petition
provisional pension at the rate of Rs.1078/- was paid to the
petitioner with effect from 1.1.2003. The Original Petition was
WP(c).No.12144/04 4
finally disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment directing
reconsideration of the matter.
6. Accordingly the matter was reconsidered and by
Ext.P13 she was informed that her outstanding liability was
Rs.81,299/-. The statement attached to Ext.P13 shows that as
on 30.11.1994, the amount that was due from the petitioner
was quantified at Rs.59,825/-. It also shows that interest has
been levied for the period subsequent to 13.4.2000, against
the directions contained in Ext.P7 judgment. Representations
were made and finally Ext.P16 was issued by the 2nd
respondent informing that the balance liability of the
petitioner is Rs.32,505/-. Along with this demand, notice and
statement were also enclosed. Subsequently, by Ext.P17, the
2nd respondent ordered, proportionate pension of Rs.1457/-
with effect from 1.4.2000 based on the remittance made by
the petitioner. Arrears on this basis was also ordered to be
arranged. It is in this background that this Writ Petition is
filed.
7. The contention raised by the petitioner is that in
terms of clause 18 of the Pension Scheme 1994, the liability of
WP(c).No.12144/04 5
a retired employee is to refund that portion of the employers
contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund together with
interest thereon. According to the petitioner, the liability for
interest has been settled by this court in Ext.P7 judgment in as
much as her liability to pay interest is at the rate of 12% till
4.2.1999 and 24% till 13.4.2000. It is stated that if interest on
Rs.40,844.59 is calculated at 12% till 4.2.1999 and 24% till
13.4.2000, the remittance of Rs.77,619/- made by her is in
excess of what was actually due. On this basis the petitioner
submits that Rs.4,519.50 is liable to the refunded.
8. According to the respondents the liability to pay
contribution, accrues with the every payment of salary. On
this basis it is contended that when there is belated payment
of the contribution due, interest will also fell due, from the
date when the contribution became due. They are relying on
Ext.R1-G instructions based on which this calculation is done.
Clause 5 and 6 of Ext.R1-G being relevant are extracted below
for reference.
“Interest rate for Pension Fund will be rate of
interest given by the DCB’s from time to time in
case the fund is invested with the DCB and
appropriate rate for other investments such asWP(c).No.12144/04 6
FD, Indira Vikas Patra etc, and 12% for the period
in which no investments have been made and the
fund is used for own lending by the Societies.
Those who have retired on or after 3.6.1993 and
before coming into force of the pension scheme
and received back the CPF the rate of interest up
to the date of retirement will be the DCB rate and
12% from the date of retirement till the date of
remittance to pension fund. “
9. It is stated that, it is on that basis, the pension
contribution has been quantified at Rs.59,824/- as on
30.11.1994 when she retired from the service of the first
respondent.
10. Therefore, all that arises for consideration in this
writ petition is the correctness of the quantification made by
the 2nd respondent by adding interest on the monthly
contribution that was due from the petitioner.
11. Clause 18 of the Scheme says that a retired
employee should refund that portion of the employees
contribution in the Contributory Privident Fund together with
interest thereon. It is evident that this clause does not say
from what date the pension fund can levy interest on a retired
person. It is taking advantage of this freedom that Ext.R1-G
instructions have been issued by the 2nd respondent, and
WP(c).No.12144/04 7
clause 6 of which states that those who have retired on or
after 3.6.1999 and received Contributory Provident Fund the
rate of interest up to the date of retirement will be the rate
paid by the District Co-operative Bank and 12% from the date
of retirement till their date of remittance to the pension fund.
Ext.R1-G is not under challenge and this is the uniform
pattern that is adopted in the pension scheme.
12. Having regard to the fact that it is permissible for the
pension fund to realize the interest from the retired employees
and in the absence of any challenge to Ext.R1-G, I cannot find
fault with the 2nd respondent in quantifying the petitioner’s
liability adding interest at the rate specified, on the
contribution that is due with interest from every month when
such liability has fallen due.
13. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ext.P7 judgment
where this court has directed that on the petitioner remitting
12% interest till 4.2.1999 and 24% interest thereafter pension
shall be paid. However, a closer reading of paragraph 3 of the
judgment shows that this court while specifying the rate of
interest and directing that her liability will be limited up to
WP(c).No.12144/04 8
13.4.2000, did not say that the pension Board shall not be at
liberty to levy interest in terms of Ext.R1-G. If that be so, the
contention relying on Ext.P7, which does not advance the
petitioner any further.
14. For these reasons, I do not find any thing irregular
in the quantification done by the Board and the petitioner’s
liability as on 30.11.1994.
Needless to say, if the petitioner makes payment of the
amount due within 8 weeks from today, the Pension Board will
accept the petitioner’s contribution and disburse the dues in
terms of the scheme.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/
WP(c).No.12144/04 9