Back
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
RP NO. 132 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO.11288 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP
For the Respondents: ADV SHRI.P.N.MOHANAN, SMT.O.M.SHALINA, SRI.BENNY THOMAS (SR.)
The EPFO is required to consistently process the joint pension option forms submitted by retirees, adhering to judicial mandates while maintaining employer liability principles.
Headnote:(A) Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Joint option forms pursuant to Pension Scheme - Review petition against direction to consider joint option forms - Court directed review petitioner to process online options submitted by retired employees within stipulated time while clarifying no merits of claims were considered, leaving them open for future adjudication. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 6)
(B) Process consistency - The EPFO cannot take inconsistent stands regarding processing claims of retired employees based on pre-existing stipulations; the court emphasized the importance of maintaining judicial directions in the interest of justice. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The writ petitioners are retired employees who submitted joint option forms for pension benefits after their employer transitioned. Court's previous order mandated processing these forms expediently without considering their merits.
Findings of Court:
The review petitioner was directed to process online options submitted within a month, complying with Supreme Court's precedent without additional liability for KPPL.
Issues: Uncertainty around KPPL's liability towards employees’ pension claims initiated post-2021 was considered vital for resolution in line with the apex court judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The review petitioner was instructed to maintain procedural consistency and adhere to judicial mandates for processing retirees’ pension claims; failing to do so would leave claimants in uncertainty.
Result: Review petition allowed; the prior order was recalled and compliance directed.
| 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 2nd 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 11th 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 them through the employer, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. It was also made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the claim of the writ petitioners and all their claims were left open.
3. The contention of the review petitioner was that the writ petitioners have submitted their online option pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation and another v. Sunil Kumar B. and others [2022 SCC Online SC 1521], and the same is available in the portal of KPPL for forwarding to the portal of EPFO for processing. It was stated that KPPL has no further liability in the matter and all that KPPL has to do is to forward the joint options to the online portal of the EPFO before 31.01.2025, the last date for submission, so that the applications can be processed by the EPFO for the petitioners to avail the benefit of the judgement in Sunil Kumar's case (supra). Accordingly, this Court, by order dated 12.09.2025, allowed the review petition and modified the judgment dated 09.12.2024 in W.P(C) No.11288 of 2023 with the following directions:
(i) The KPPL, the 11th respondent in the writ petition shall endorse and forward the online options submitted by the writ petitioners to the online portal of EPFO within one month from today, and shall have no further liability in doing so.
(ii) On receipt of the online options, the review petitioner shall process and finalise the same within a period of three months therefrom.
(iii) It is made clear that the above direction is issued only to enable the review petitioner to process the online options submitted by the writ petitioners to avail the benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar's case (supra). This direction will not in any manner affect the legal issue whether KPPL is the employer of HNL employees who retired prior to 2021, and the issue whether KPPL has any liability towards employees like the writ petitioners who retired from service prior to the take over of HNL, would depend on and would be subject to the decision to be taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.31624/2023.
(iv) Since the review petition was filed with application to condone delay and the application itself was brought up for consideration after the closure of online facility on 31.01.2025, the said cut off date shall not stand in the way of EPFO accepting and processing the online options of the writ petitioners as and when forwarded by KPPL.
(v) It is made clear that this Court has not considered the merits of the claim of the writ petitioners for higher pension.
4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Kottayam, the review petitioner has now filed a peti
