B. Lalithamma vs Regional Provident Fund … on 20 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 9259 of 2005(B)


1. B. LALITHAMMA, W/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II
                       ...       Respondent

2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAJAJ ELECTRICALS

3. REGIONAL PROVIDENNT FUND COMMISSIONER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.MOHANDAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N. SUGUNAPALAN, SC, P.F.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :20/08/2009

 O R D E R
                  C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
                  --------------------------------------------
                       W. P. C NO. 9259 OF 2005
                  --------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 20th day of August, 2009

                                JUDGMENT

Even though counsel for the first respondent requested for further

time for getting instruction from Mumbai office, I do not think there is

any justification for adjourning the case further because, WPC was

filed in 2005 and the same pertains to a widow’s eligibility for family

pension under EPF Scheme, who is aged above 70 years. Further the

pension though granted vide Ext.P2 was withdrawn vide Ext.P3 for the

reason that employee was not paying subscription during one year prior

to his death. However, it is seen that this is a case where petitioner’s

husband was missing and later after 7 years, he was treated as dead.

Therefore obviously the provision is not capable of performance and

this Court in the decision in LAKSHMIKUTTY V. UNION OF

INDIA, (1993) 2 KLT 923 declared the said provision, namely, clause

28, sub-clause (2) as arbitrary and discriminatory. In the

circumstances, Ext.P3 is quashed with direction to the first respondent

to immediately clear the arrears of pension due to the petitioner in

2

terms of the original grant vide Ext.P2 within a period of three months

from now. Petitioner will be paid pension continuously thereafter in

terms of the scheme. Whatever other rights are available to the

pensioner under the scheme, the same should be given to the petitioner.

In other words, petitioner should be treated as if she was in the rolls of

pension and all the accrued benefits granted to similar pensioners

should be given to the petitioner.

W.P.C. is allowed as above.

(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
kk

3