IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 46546 OF 2024 PETITIONERS:

1 MUSTHAFA AVANIKKADU, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. A.K.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT A.K. HOUSE, KULANGARAKANDI, GOVINDAPURAM P.O., CALICUT, PIN - 673016

2 PREMARAJAN P.P, AGED 59 YEARS S/O. IMBICHIKUTTY P.P., RESIDING AT PUTHANPURAYIL, PUTHOORMADAM, PANTHEERANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019

3 T.P. PRAKASAN, AGED 67 YEARS S/O. BHASKARAN T.P., RESIDING AT MAKKADATH HOUSE, CHELANNUR P.O., AMBALATHKULANGARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673616

4 AMBUJAKSHI M.K, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. SREEDHARAN K.P., RESIDING AT CHATHAMBALATH HOUSE, ANNASSERY P.O., THALAKKULATHUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673317

5 E.SUBAIDA, AGED 64 YEARS W/O. HARRIS P., RESIDING AT KUNDOTH HOUSE, PARAMBIL P.O., PARAMBIL BAZAR, MERIKUNNU VIA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673012 BY ADVS.

R.SANJITH C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH RESPONDENTS:

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

2 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066

3 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, P.B.NO.1806, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006

4 GOVERNMENT WOOD WORKSHOP (SIDCO)

KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS UNIT HEAD, PIN - 673004 BY ADV NITA N.S,SC BY SRI.T.C.KRISHNA, DSGI (I/C)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioners were employed under the

4^th respondent. They retired from service subsequent to 01.09.2014. They have filed this writ petition for direction to respondents 2 and 3 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 22^nd 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 22^nd 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 1^st 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 1^st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1^st 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.

Ther