The court emphasizes the necessity of undertaking inquiry under prescribed statutes for pension contributions and allows the waiver of interest on delayed payments based on genuine contestation.

JUDGMENT :

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

The 1^st petitioner is a co-operative society represented by its secretary. The 2^nd petitioner is the Managing Committee of the same. The 6^th respondent herein was admittedly the secretary of the society from 1987 to 2015. Admittedly, his services were not originally regularised, and it was regularised only after his retirement. After his retirement, he instituted W.P.(C) No.33009 of 2015 seeking for the disbursement of the pensionary benefits. By Ext.P1 judgment dated 11.01.2017, this Court specifically noticed the contention raised by the 6^th respondent that he was entitled for receiving at least Rs.40 lakhs towards the terminal benefits. According to the petitioner herein, who was the respondent in that case, the entitlement of the 6^th respondent was only for Rs.29,58,817/-. This Court also noticed the contention raised by the society that the 6^th respondent herein had to pay an amount in excess of Rs.10,70,905/- to the society. Ultimately, this Court directed the society to disburse Rs.18,87,912/- and another amount of Rs.6,14,409/- to the Pension Board. The society also filed I.A No.1460 of 2017 in the afore writ petition, pointing out that the amount of Rs.18,87,912/- was inclusive of the amount payable to the Pension Board. Therefore, the judgment at Ext.P1 was corrected by permitting the society to disburse Rs.12,73,503/- to the 6^th respondent along with a sum of Rs.6,14,409/- to the Pension Board. Admittedly, the amount of Rs.6,14,409/- has been satisfied by the 1^st petitioner society, as evidenced by Ext.P3 dated 31.07.2017. Later, the 6^th respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.11591 of 2019, pointing out that the proportionate pension requires to be extended to him. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 04.06.2019, the 6^th respondent was permitted to make a request before the Board for extension of the same. At that point of time, the 5^th respondent – Pension Board, had issued Ext.P6 notice, directing the 1^st petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 7,27,901/- more towards the contribution payable to the Pension Board, after crediting the amount paid pursuant to Ext.P3 receipt. The afore demand was challenged by the petitioners by filing W.P.(C) No.14514 of 2021 before this Court. By Ext.P10 judgment dated 08.06.2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the afore writ petition, finding that the demand could be enforced only after carrying out an enquiry under the provisions of Clause 38 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme (for short ‘Scheme’). On the basis of the directions issued, an order at Ext.P12 was issued by the 5^th respondent, finding that the society is liable to satisfy the amounts as calculated originally. Therefore, the proceedings at Ext.P12 were taken up in appeal before the Government by filing Ext.P13 appeal. By the impugned order at Ext.P16, the Government having rejected the same, the petitioners have instituted the captioned writ petition.

2. I have heard Sri.George Sebastian, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4, Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, as well as Sri.T.R.Harikumar, the learned counsel for the legal heirs of the 6^th respondent, who passed away during the