Kerala High Court
V.Kumaran vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 20 February, 2019
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA,
1940
WP(C).No. 18578 of 2017
PETITIONER/S:
V.KUMARAN
AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA MENON, VIJAYASREE,
KARINKKARAPPULLY.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.V.O.PHILOMINA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB
REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN,
ERANJIPALAM, CALICUT-673006.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,
PALAKKAD-679001.
3 THE STATE DIRECTOR
KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION, STATE
OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CONTROLLING
AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972)
PALAKKAD-679101.
5 PALGHAT SARVODAYA SANGH
HEAD OFFICE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-
679101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC, P.F.
SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH,SC SARVODAYA SANG
SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,SC,KHADI &VILLA
OTHER PRESENT:
GP- SRI SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 18578 of 2017
-2-
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to disburse the provident fund and retirement benefits due to the petitioner, to expedite the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and to disburse the balance subsistence allowance due to the petitioner for the period 10/2006 to 30.6.2006, forthwith.
2. According to the petitioner, he was an employee of the 5th respondent, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. He entered the service of the 5 th respondent on 4.11.1968 and retired on 30.6.2008. While in service, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, alleging misappropriation. Consequently, the petitioner was kept under compulsory loss of pay leave from 1.11.2002 onwards, which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5705 of 2004. By Ext.P2 judgment, the WP(C).No. 18578 of 2017 -3- impugned orders were quashed, without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings. It was also directed that all consequential benefits, pursuant to quashing of the impugned orders will be granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended on 1.1.2003 pending enquiry and the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner was denied. The petitioner initially approached this Court and as directed by this Court, approached the 4 th respondent, who directed the 5 th respondent to pay the subsistence allowance due to the petitioner. Though the 5th respondent challenged the direction to pay subsistence allowance by filing W.P.(C) No.16528 of 2010, that writ petition was dismissed as per Ext.P4 judgment. Yet again the petitioner approached the 4th respondent complaining about the denial of subsistence allowance and as per Ext.P5 order dated 5.2.2010, the 5th respondent was directed to pay WP(C).No. 18578 of 2017 -4- subsistence allowance to the petitioner from 1/2003 to 10/2006. While so, the petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2008 and thereupon submitted Form No.19 claiming the Employees' Provident Funds dues. As per Ext.P6 communication, the 5th respondent informed the petitioner that the Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation had returned the Form No.19 application stating that the petitioner's retirement date is in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though a direction was issued by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission to take a decision on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner as evident from Ext.P7, a final decision on the disciplinary proceedings is yet to be taken. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition was filed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the WP(C).No. 18578 of 2017 -5- 5th respondent wherein it is stated that the petitioner was instrumental in delaying the finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings against him and disbursal of his retirement benefits. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent points out that the petitioner had approached the Civil Court and had obtained an interim order against finalsation of the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the petitioner cannot allege that the 5th respondent had deliberately delayed finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on date, there is no legal proceeding pending, interdicting the 5 th respondent from completing the disciplinary proceedings.
4. Taking into consideration the above facts as well as the contentions put forward by the learned counsel on either side, I deem it appropriate that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner be concluded at WP(C).No. 18578 of 2017 -6- least within a period of six months. As far as the question of disbursal of provident fund and retirement benefits is concerned, it appears that there is a dispute with regard to the date on which the petitioner had entered service, inasmuch as the petitioner claims that he has been in continuous service from 4.11.1968, whereas according to the 5th respondent, though the petitioner had initially joined service on 4.11.1968, he had left the Sangam and had later joined only in the year 1978. Whatever be the dispute with respect to the date of joining of the petitioner in the service of the 5th respondent, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner had retired from service on 30.6.2008. Therefore, there is no justifiable reason for delaying disbursal of the provident fund to the petitioner. Such disbursal can be effected only if the necessary forms are filled and submitted by the 5th respondent. This exercise shall be undertaken by WP(C).No. 18578 of 2017 -7- the 5th respondent and completed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon receipt of the requisite forms and applications, the first respondent shall disburse the eligible provident fund to the petitioner. As far as the dispute with regard to the payment of the balance subsistence allowance is concerned, it will not be possible for this Court to decide that factual dispute. It is for the petitioner to approach the authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act for redressal of his grievance.
Under such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The 5th respondent shall finalise the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.WP(C).No. 18578 of 2017
-8-
(ii) The 5th respondent shall take steps for submitting the requisite forms before the first respondent to enable disbursal of eligible provident fund amount to the petitioner.
(iii) The first respondent shall disburse the provident fund amount due to the petitioner within a period of one month from receipt of the requisite forms.
(iv) The petitioner is at liberty to approach the authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act for ventilating his grievance, if any, with regard to non-
payment of the balance subsistence allowance, due to the petitioner.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/20.2 WP(C).No. 18578 of 2017 -9- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AND STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/6/2005 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.5705/2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.5088/2009 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 27.2.2012 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C)NO.16528/2010 AND 16530/2010 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.3.2013 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.8.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6/2/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.2.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.