REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs CHANDRAN K., P. HAREENDRAN NAIR, VARGHESE.E.J, SREEPATHY R., BENNY P. B., GANESAN P., MOHANAN NAIR K., VANAJAKUMARI B., JOHNY M.V., UNNIKRISHNAN C., ABRAHAM K.A, VARGHESE V.M., BHARGAVAN PILLAI R., JOSE P.A., DR. LATHA N.J., SASIKALA S., MURALIDHARAN A., P REGHUNADHAN, SOMARAJAN PILLAI, THANGARAJA S., MADANAMOHANAN N., RAM MOHAN G., RAVI N. T., SOMADAS K., SUNNY K. C., BAJIRAO RAKHAMAJI SHELKE, SUNNY JOSEPH, GOPALAN K., CHANDRAKUMAR P., JOY P.M., POULOSE K.V., RAVI K.E., VIJAYAN M. I., E.V. SOMAN NAIR, BAHULEYAN K.K., VIMALA A.V, SUNNY M.J, MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI D, THOMAS.A, JOE MAMMEN K, XAVIER K.V, VASANDAKUMAR P.N, DILEEPKUMAR N., MOHANANPILLAI S, BABY T.V, ZACHARIA ABRAHAM, RAVINDRAN PILLAI V., NANDLAL SINGH, HARIKUMAR P.S, DEVENDRA PRASAD YADAV, CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR T.K, AMBIKA N.K, JOHN CYRIAC, SUKUMARAN V.K., THARMARAJ M., SUDHAKARA KURUP, VARGHESE PAUL, VALSALAN N.V, BABU C.G, DIVAKARAN M.T, SANATHANAN K, ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, BABY V.T, BABU R.B, K.D.VIJAYALAKSHMI, GEORGE JOSEPH, KANAGARAJ R., RAMACHANDRAN NAIR P.R, R.V. DEV, BABU SURESHKUMAR K.C, SALINA T.A, CHANDRAN M, MOHANAN P.V, PHYLIP P.V, THOMAS K.J, P. J. JOSEPH, SUDHAKARAN R., MOHANAN P., A. BALACHANDRAN, GOPALAKRISHNAN V., K.N.RANI, AJITH KUMAR.G, SUGATHAN.G, UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 54877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER – Appellant
Versus
CHANDRAN K., P. HAREENDRAN NAIR, VARGHESE.E.J, SREEPATHY R., BENNY P. B., GANESAN P., MOHANAN NAIR K., VANAJAKUMARI B., JOHNY M.V., UNNIKRISHNAN C., ABRAHAM K.A, VARGHESE V.M., BHARGAVAN PILLAI R., JOSE P.A., DR. LATHA N.J., SASIKALA S., MURALIDHARAN A., P REGHUNADHAN, SOMARAJAN PILLAI, THANGARAJA S., MADANAMOHANAN N., RAM MOHAN G., RAVI N. T., SOMADAS K., SUNNY K. C., BAJIRAO RAKHAMAJI SHELKE, SUNNY JOSEPH, GOPALAN K., CHANDRAKUMAR P., JOY P.M., POULOSE K.V., RAVI K.E., VIJAYAN M. I., E.V. SOMAN NAIR, BAHULEYAN K.K., VIMALA A.V, SUNNY M.J, MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI D, THOMAS.A, JOE MAMMEN K, XAVIER K.V, VASANDAKUMAR P.N, DILEEPKUMAR N., MOHANANPILLAI S, BABY T.V, ZACHARIA ABRAHAM, RAVINDRAN PILLAI V., NANDLAL SINGH, HARIKUMAR P.S, DEVENDRA PRASAD YADAV, CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR T.K, AMBIKA N.K, JOHN CYRIAC, SUKUMARAN V.K., THARMARAJ M., SUDHAKARA KURUP, VARGHESE PAUL, VALSALAN N.V, BABU C.G, DIVAKARAN M.T, SANATHANAN K, ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, BABY V.T, BABU R.B, K.D.VIJAYALAKSHMI, GEORGE JOSEPH, KANAGARAJ R., RAMACHANDRAN NAIR P.R, R.V. DEV, BABU SURESHKUMAR K.C, SALINA T.A, CHANDRAN M, MOHANAN P.V, PHYLIP P.V, THOMAS K.J, P. J. JOSEPH, SUDHAKARAN R., MOHANAN P., A. BALACHANDRAN, GOPALAKRISHNAN V., K.N.RANI, AJITH KUMAR.G, SUGATHAN.G, UNION OF INDIA (UOI), REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP
For the Respondents: ADV SHRI.P.N.MOHANAN, SMT.O.M.SHALINA, SRI.BENNY THOMAS (SR.)

Table of Content
1. review petition filed against joint pension claim processing. (Para 1 , 2)
2. contestation on employer's liability for pension claims. (Para 3 , 4)
3. inconsistent stances of epfo on processing claims. (Para 5)
4. court emphasized processing claims timely. (Para 6)

ORDER

This review petition is filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Kottayam, the 2^nd respondent in W.P(C) No.11288 of 2023 against the judgment of this Court dated 09.12.2024 passed therein.

2. The writ petitioners are the retired employees of Hindustan Newsprint Ltd.(HNL). The said establishment was later taken over by the Kerala Paper Products Limited (KPPL), the 11^th respondent in the writ petition. Joint option forms under Paragraph 11(4) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, in respect of the petitioners were submitted by the HNL, the erstwhile employer, before the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), as evident by Ext. P4. This Court, by the impugned judgment, directed the review petitioner to consider Ext. P4 joint option form submitted by the writ petitioners and other similar option forms individually submitted by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document