SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 745

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Murali Purushothaman, J.
Sheela PK and ors.  – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India (UOI), Represented By The Secretary To The Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment, Shram Sakthi Bhavan, Raffi Margh, New Delhi and ors.  – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 11656 of 2025
Decided On : 25-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SHEELA PK D/O.RAGHAVAN.P.
For the Respondent: BY ADV NITA N.S SRI.T.C.KRISHNA (DSGI I/C)

IMPORTANT POINT
The court directed the processing of Joint Option Forms for retired employees in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment, affirming the applicability of the amended pension scheme to exempted establishments.

Headnote:

(A) Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Joint Option Forms - The petitioners, retired employees, sought direction for processing their Joint Option Forms in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. - The Supreme Court held that the amended pension scheme applies to employees of exempted establishments and clarified the rights of employees regarding exercising options under the scheme. (Paras 1 , 3 )

(B) Article 142 of the Constitution of India - The court exercised its jurisdiction to extend the time for employees to exercise their options under the amended scheme. (Paras 1 , 3 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioners retired after 01.09.2014 and filed a writ petition for processing their Joint Option Forms as per the Supreme Court's directives.

Findings of Court:

The court directed the 2nd respondent to process the Joint Option Forms within three months in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners' Joint Option Forms should be processed as per the Supreme Court's ruling.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to comply with the Supreme Court's judgment regarding the processing of Joint Option Forms and the rights of employees under the amended pension scheme.

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.

The petitioners were employed under the 4th respondent. They retired from service subsequent to 01.09.2014. They have filed this writ petition for direction to the 2nd respondent to process the Joint Option Forms preferred by them in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another v. Sunil Kumar B. and others [2022 (7) KHC 12] , within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another (supra), held as follows:-

“We accordingly hold and direct:-

(i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the Scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent sub-paragraphs.

(ii) Amendment to the pension Scheme brought about by the notification No.G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed.

(iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme and continued to be in service as on 1st September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.

(iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment Scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1st September 2014 did not provide for any cutoff date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the Scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre- amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension Scheme.

There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment Scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the Scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with.

(v) The employees who had retired prior to 1st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the preamendment Scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

(vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension Scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014.

(vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15,000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended Scheme is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the Scheme so that the additional contribution can be genera

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top