Court confirmed that pension benefits are contingent on timely employer contributions under the applicable scheme.

J U D G M E N T

[W.P.(C) Nos.12800 of 2023, 12918 of 2023, 13023 of 2023, 13027 of 2023 & 13029 of 2023]

The petitioners in these writ petitions were working in the 3^rd respondent Co-operative Bank. The respective petitioners have all retired from the services of the 3^rd respondent Bank. The petitioners contend that they are entitled for the benefit of pension under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme , 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme’). Under the afore Scheme, the contribution requires to be made by the Bank concerned – the 3^rd respondent herein – and the petitioners point out that there was delay/omission from the side of the 3^rd respondent Bank in making contribution, on account of which the petitioners’ pension were being delayed/denied. In such circumstances, they have instituted the captioned writ petition seeking the following reliefs;

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the 1^st respondent to pay the arrears and interest towards the Pension of the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the 1^st respondent to compute and recover the arrears from the 3^rd respondent towards the Pension arrears of the petitioner.”

2. I have heard Sri.Rilgin V.George, the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the Kerala State Co-operative Employees’ Pension Board, Sri.M.V.Amaresan, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, as well as Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader for the 4^th respondent.

3. Sri.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the Pension Board invites the attention of this Court to the proceedings at Ext.P3 dated 14.09.2022 issued by the Pension Board, to point out that the arrears in the contribution due from the 3^rd respondent Bank have since been collected and, on that basis, the pension has also been disbursed to the respective petitioners. He would also invite the attention of this Court to the provisions under Rule 39 of the Scheme referred to above, to point out that under the proviso to sub-rule 1(b), the entitlement for pension is only from the succeeding month after the remittance of the entire portion of the employer’s contribution, and with reference to the afore, as and when the contributions have been made by the 3^rd respondent Bank, with reference to the next month onwards, pension has also been disbursed to the respective petitioners. He would also rely on the very same proviso to point out that, in such circumstances, there is no entitlement for arrears of pension also as regards the petitioners herein.

4. I have considered the afore contentions, perused the proceedings at Ext.P3, as well as the contentions raised in the writ petition.

5. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that liberty may be granted to the respective petitioners to take steps against the proceedings at Ext.P3 in accordance with law.

6. Taking note of the afore submission, I permit the petitioners to invoke the remedy available against the proceedings at Ext.P3, under the provisions of the Scheme.

These writ petitions are disposed of as above.

Sd/-