{"id":82913,"date":"2010-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-26T21:27:57","modified_gmt":"2014-03-26T15:57:57","slug":"k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund … on 25 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund … on 25 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 29437 of 2008(D)\n\n\n1. K.A.RAJAPPAN, S\/O. AYAPPAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. CHIEF PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER\n\n3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :25\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n              P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.\n                -----------------------------------------------\n                        WP(C) No. 29437 of 2008\n                     ----------------------------------------\n              Dated, this the 25th day of January, 2010\n\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd<\/p>\n
respondent denying the benefit of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995,<\/p>\n
stating that the petitioner is not entitled to get the same, he having been<\/p>\n
opted for the same only after the date of retirement.<\/p>\n
       2.    The specific case of the petitioner is that, the ‘option’ was<\/p>\n
exercised by the petitioner then and there, when the scheme was<\/p>\n
introduced in the year 1995, that the amounts were being caused to be<\/p>\n
deducted and deposited to the 1st and 2nd respondents pursuant to the<\/p>\n
representation filed in 1999 before the 3rd respondent and further that<\/p>\n
the deficit amount was also satisfied pursuant to Ext.P2 issued by the<\/p>\n
2nd respondent and it was thereafter that the 2nd respondent took a `U’<\/p>\n
turn, to deny the benefit to the petitioner, wrongly stating that he had not<\/p>\n
exercised the option.\n<\/p>\n
       3.    The sequence of events as narrated in the Writ Petition<\/p>\n
shows that the petitioner joined service under the 3rd respondent as a<\/p>\n
worker on 08.03.1966. Subsequently he was selected and appointed as<\/p>\n
a vehicle helper with effect from 22.09.1975 and after serving in the said<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.29437\/2008
\n                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
capacity for more than three decades, the petitioner came out from the<\/p>\n
service on attaining age of superannuation on 30.06.2008.<\/p>\n
       4.    While the petitioner was serving the 3rd respondent as a<\/p>\n
vehicle helper, Employees’ Pension Scheme was introduced; prior to<\/p>\n
which, the petitioner was a member of Provident Fund right from<\/p>\n
November 1969. Despite submitting the option to join the Scheme,<\/p>\n
necessary contribution was not being deducted from the Provident Fund<\/p>\n
Account of the petitioner; which hence was brought to the notice of the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent\/employer by filing the representation, seeking to rectify the<\/p>\n
mistake. Pursuant to the steps taken by the petitioner in this regard, the<\/p>\n
position was verified and the mistake was rectified by the 3rd respondent<\/p>\n
who started necessary deduction from the EPF account, as shown in the<\/p>\n
table given under paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition.\n<\/p>\n
       5.    After retirement from the service, the petitioner was<\/p>\n
continuously knocking at the doors of the respondents for sanctioning the<\/p>\n
PF pension under the 1995 Scheme. Pursuant to the request made by the<\/p>\n
3rd respondent\/employer, to submit the necessary form duly filled up<\/p>\n
again, it was complied with by the petitioner and all the requisite materials<\/p>\n
were furnished as borne by Ext.P1. Thereafter the 2nd respondent<\/p>\n
required the petitioner vide letter dated 30.07.2008 to submit his<\/p>\n
‘willingness’ to transfer a sum of Rs.83,022\/- from the EPF Account, to the<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.29437\/2008
\n                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
‘Pension Fund’; which in turn was readily satisfied by the petitioner, also<\/p>\n
enclosing a ‘fresh form 1’ duly filled up. It was immediately thereafter, the<\/p>\n
petitioner was served with Ext.P3 dated 19.09.2008 by the 2nd respondent<\/p>\n
stating that, the claim for pension under the Scheme was rejected since<\/p>\n
the petitioner had exercised the option only after attaining the age of 55<\/p>\n
years; which is under challenge in this Writ Petition.<\/p>\n
       6.    The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2<\/p>\n
virtually does not dispute the various facts and figures as put forth by the<\/p>\n
petitioner; but for stating that the petitioner had not opted for the Family<\/p>\n
Pension Scheme 1971 or the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 till his<\/p>\n
‘resignation’ (appears to be wrongly stated in place of ‘retirement’) on<\/p>\n
30.06.2008. It is also stated that the payment effected by the petitioner<\/p>\n
for the period from 1999 and 2007 to 2008 got merged with the EPF at the<\/p>\n
time of settlement and reliance is sought to be placed on Ext.R1(a) to R1<\/p>\n
(d) (various forms submitted by the petitioner at different points of time).<\/p>\n
No counter affidavit or statement has been filed from the part of the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent\/employer. The averments in the counter affidavit have been<\/p>\n
rebutted by the petitioner by filing a reply affidavit, also producing a copy<\/p>\n
of the ‘annual statement of contribution’ made by the petitioner for the<\/p>\n
year 1999-2000 as Ext.P5.\n<\/p>\n
       7.    The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.29437\/2008
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
taken by the 1st respondent that the petitioner submitted option form only<\/p>\n
after the date of retirement is a misrepresentation; particularly when there<\/p>\n
is no such case for the 3rd respondent\/employer, through whom the option<\/p>\n
was submitted by the petitioner at the relevant time. Similarly, it is to be<\/p>\n
noted   that   the   petitioner  himself  volunteered   to   alert  the   3rd<\/p>\n
respondent\/employer as to the omission from the part of the said<\/p>\n
respondent in deducting the necessary contribution from the EPF<\/p>\n
account, to be credited to the Pension Fund and it was accordingly that<\/p>\n
the mistake was rectified by the 3rd respondent\/employer and deduction<\/p>\n
was made right from 1999 till the date of retirement in 2008, remitting the<\/p>\n
same to the Pension Scheme of the 2nd respondent. There was no such<\/p>\n
case for any of the respondents while instructing the petitioner as per<\/p>\n
letter dated 30.07.2008 to submit ‘willingness’ to transfer a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.83,022\/- from the EPF Account to the Pension Fund, which was<\/p>\n
complied with by the petitioner as borne by Ext.P2. As borne by the table<\/p>\n
given in paragraph 5 of Writ Petition, a total sum of Rs.54,526\/- had<\/p>\n
already been deducted from the EPF accounts of the petitioner and were<\/p>\n
adjusted towards the Employees Pension Scheme, which aspect is rather<\/p>\n
conceded in the counter affidavit filed from the part of the 1st and 2nd<\/p>\n
respondents as well.\n<\/p>\n
       8.    As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.29437\/2008
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner, Ext.R1(a) ‘nomination form’ produced by the respondents 1 and<\/p>\n
2 itself shows that, it is in respect of both the ‘EPF’ and ‘EPS’. Under Part<\/p>\n
A of Ext.R1(a) pertaining to EPF, the petitioner has nominated his wife<\/p>\n
Ratnavalli Rajan as the beneficiary. Similar nomination has been made<\/p>\n
under Part B pertaining to the Employees Pension Scheme as well. The<\/p>\n
said proceedings bear the signature of the Manager, Personnal and<\/p>\n
Administration of the 3rd respondent\/employer, also bearing the seal.<\/p>\n
Similarly, all the other documents Exts.R1(b) to R1(d) produced by the<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2 also bear the seal of the 3rd respondent\/employer.<\/p>\n
That apart, Ext.P5 produced by the petitioner along with the reply affidavit<\/p>\n
shows that a sum of Rs.5,004\/- was deducted towards the Pension fund<\/p>\n
in respect of the petitioner for the year ‘1999-00’. By virtue of these<\/p>\n
undisputed facts, this Court comes to the irresistible conclusion that the<\/p>\n
petitioner had submitted the ‘option’ much before, while he was in service<\/p>\n
and that his version that the employer committed a mistake in not<\/p>\n
effecting deduction and transferring the amount to the Pension Scheme<\/p>\n
when they were alerted and accordingly they started to deduct the same<\/p>\n
and remit to the respondents 1 and 2 from the year 1999 onwards<\/p>\n
appears to correct. The deduction as well as the remittance of the amount<\/p>\n
to the pension scheme from the year 1999 till the date of retirement in<\/p>\n
June, 2008 having been admitted from the part of the respondents, the<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.29437\/2008
\n                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
plea now put forth vide Ext.P3, that the petitioner had submitted ‘option’<\/p>\n
only after attaining age of 58 years cannot be taken without a pinch of<\/p>\n
salt. It appears that some mistake or omission has occurred at the hands<\/p>\n
of the respondents, though the exact point is not brought to the notice of<\/p>\n
this Court; for which the blame has been simply put up on the shoulders<\/p>\n
of the petitioner, denying him the benefits available under the Scheme,<\/p>\n
which cannot but be deprecated in the strongest possible words.<\/p>\n
       9.    In the above circumstances, it is declared that the petitioner<\/p>\n
had exercised his option much prior to his retirement and appropriate<\/p>\n
deduction being made from 1999 onwards and the deficit amount to top<\/p>\n
up the extent of contribution payable in respect of a person who was not a<\/p>\n
member of this scheme as provided in paragraph 7 (3) read with<\/p>\n
paragraph 17(3) of the scheme enabling such exercise having been<\/p>\n
satisfied as revealed from Ext.P2, the respondents are very much liable to<\/p>\n
pay the pension to the petitioner; denial of which is per-se arbitrary and<\/p>\n
illegal.\n<\/p>\n
       10.   Accordingly, Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent is set<\/p>\n
aside. The respondents are directed to pursue and finalise all necessary<\/p>\n
steps to pay the pension payable to the petitioner under the Employees<\/p>\n
Pension Scheme 1995 and the amount shall be disbursed with interest as<\/p>\n
provided under the Scheme as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.29437\/2008
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In<\/p>\n
the view of the observation in Ext.P3 that the amount already remitted by<\/p>\n
the petitioner under the Pension Scheme will stand merged with the EPF<\/p>\n
account; the petitioner will have to satisfy the required extent of<\/p>\n
contribution as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks<\/p>\n
from the date of raising the demand in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
      The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No cost.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                      P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
\n                                                  JUDGE
\ndnc<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund … on 25 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 29437 of 2008(D) 1. K.A.RAJAPPAN, S\/O. AYAPPAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. CHIEF PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, … Respondent 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN For Respondent :SRI.JOSEPH […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-82913","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-26T15:57:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund … on 25 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-26T15:57:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1506,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010\",\"name\":\"K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-26T15:57:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund … on 25 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-26T15:57:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund … on 25 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-26T15:57:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010"},"wordCount":1506,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010","name":"K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund ... on 25 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-26T15:57:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-a-rajappan-vs-chief-provident-fund-on-25-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.A.Rajappan vs Chief Provident Fund … on 25 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82913","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82913"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82913\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}