Retired employees are entitled to higher pensions based on actual contributions when discrepancies are rectified by their employer.

COMMON JUDGMENT

The petitioners are retired employees of HLL Life Care Company. While in service, the petitioners were enrolled in the Contributory Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme , 1952. The petitioners made contributions to the Scheme based on the actual salary drawn from the date of entering service until their retirement. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 6499/2025 retired on 27.05.2022, and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 43945/2024 retired on 31.12.2019. The pension papers were forwarded to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 raised an objection stating that, during the credit period from April 2009 to March 2010, there was a short payment in the case of the petitioners as per the records of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization. The petitioners were served with Ext.P1 communication to that effect.

2. I have heard Sri.P.N.Mohanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Nita N S, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that contributions were made to the Provident Fund Scheme as required during the entire period of their service, and therefore, they are entitled to higher pension on the actual wages.

4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2, the employer. In the counter affidavit, respondent No.2 stated that there could have been a mistake in the office of respondent No.1 when the manual returns were merged into the computer as part of the computerization process. It is further stated that, since the data pertains to a period 14 years ago, respondent No.2 is unable to trace out the contribution payment challans to verify the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. Respondent No.2 further made it clear that, in order to bring quietus to the issue, they are prepared to pay the difference in contribution without prejudice. It is also stated that the offer made by respondent No.2 to remit the contribution may not be construed as an admission regarding the non-payment of contribution on the actual wages. Respondent No.2 also stated that the company had paid the administrative charges of EPF on the actual wages, for which contributions were remitted.

5. The only contention of respondent No.1 is that during the credit period from April, 2009 to March 2010 there was a short payment in the cases of the petitioners. The eligibility of the petitioners for higher pension is otherwise not disputed. There is no dispute regarding the payment of administrative charges of EPF on the actual wages. This is a case where respondent No.2 asserts that they paid the contributions during the period highlighted by respondent No.1. At the same time, respondent No.2 has agreed to pay the difference in the contribution to settle the issue with a view to protect the interests of the employees.

Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of as follows:-

If there is any deficiency in the contributions for the period from April, 2009 to March, 2010, respondent No.1 shall demand the quantified amount from respondent No.2 within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. On receipt of the requisition, respondent No.2 shall pay the difference in the contribution within one month.

Upon receipt of the shortfall, respondent No. 1 shall consider granting higher pension to the petitioners based on the actual wages within two months.

Sd/-