Kerala High Court
The Kerala Minerals And Metals Limited vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 4 February, 2020
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.9480 OF 2019(H)
PETITIONER/S:
THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED
SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM 691 583
REPRESENTED BY ITS HOD (PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATION/LEGAL)
BY ADVS.
SMT.LATHA ANAND
SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON
SRI.K.R.PRAMOTH KUMAR
SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN (PARACKAL)
SRI.S.VISHNU (ARIKKATTIL)
RESPONDENT/S:
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
SUB REGIONAL OFFICE,
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
PONNAMMA CHAMBERS-1
PARAMESWAR NAGAR, CHINNAKKADA,
KOLLAM-691 001
R1 BY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2020, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.26037 OF 2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 15TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.26037 OF 2019(D)
PETITIONER:
THE KERALA MINERALS AND METALS LIMITED
SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691583,
REPRESENTED BY ITS HOD (PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATION/LEGAL)
BY ADVS.
SMT.LATHA ANAND
SRI.M.N.RADHAKRISHNA MENON
RESPONDENT/S:
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION, PONNAMMA CHAMBERS-1,
PARAMESWAR NAGAR, CHINNAKKADA,
KOLLAM-691001.
BY SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR,SC,EPF ORGN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.02.2020 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.9480 OF 2019, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 3
"CR"
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is a Government owned Company having its registered office at Kollam and is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ('EPF Act' for short). The company is exempted from EPF Scheme and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme under the EPF Act as the Company has separate schemes in that regard. The company has however opted for the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 framed under Section 6A of the EPF Act and is operative from the year 1995.
2. W.P.(C) No.26037 of 2019 is filed challenging Ext.P6 order by which the petitioner has been ordered to pay interest under Section 7Q of the EPF Act on belated remittances of dues demanded under Sections 6A and 6C of the Act for the period from 7/2014 to 11/2015. W.P.(C) No.9480 of 2019 is preferred challenging Ext.P13 order by which the petitioner has been ordered to pay interest under Section 7Q of the Act for the period commencing from 01/2009 to 9/2011. The contentions advanced for assailing the orders being similar, these Writ Petitions are heard and WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 4 disposed of together.
3. As per the provisions of 6, 6A and 6C of the EPF Act r/w. paragraph No.38 of the EPF Scheme, the petitioner herein was required to remit the contribution payable under the Act and the Schemes framed thereunder within 15 days of the close of every month to the Commissioner. The respondent initiated proceedings, when it came to its notice, that the contributions payable for the period from 7/2014 to 9/2015 had not been remitted within the due date. A sum of Rs.73,168/- was accordingly assessed as the amount due under Section 7Q of the Act by Ext.P6 order. In W.P.(C) No.9480 of 2019, the amount demanded u/s. 7Q from the petitioner herein is Rs.24,92,435/-.
4. In W.P.(C) No.26037 of 2019, it is contended that the pay fixation of non-workmen category of employees, viz., officers, is effected every five years subject to approval/sanction from the government. The Dearness Allowance is accordingly paid in accordance with Government Orders. It is contended that the Dearness Allowance w.e.f. 1.7.2014 was revised by the Government by Ext.P1 Order dated 7.2.2015 and the Dearness Allowance w.e.f 1.1.2015 was revised by Ext.P2 order dated 7.8.2015. In terms of the revision, the employees' pension contribution in respect of Dearness Allowance for the period from 7/2014 to 3/2015 was WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 5 paid on 20.5.2015. In the same manner, the employees' pension contribution in respect of Dearness Allowance arrears for the period from 1/2015 to 6/2015 was paid on 12.2.2016. It is contended that the revised Dearness Allowance can only be paid when necessary orders are issued by the Government pursuant to which decisions are to be taken by the Company. On receipt of show cause notice, a representative of the petitioner appeared before the respondent and it was contended that there is no delay as the arrears were payable only when Government issues orders and the petitioner herein has no control over it. However, disregarding the submissions, the impugned order was passed.
5. In W.P.(C) No.9480 of 2019, the petitioner contends that the wage revision of workmen category of employees is effected on the basis of a long-term agreement arrived at once in every four years, subject to sanction/approval from the Government. The long-term agreement for the period from 1/2009 to 12/2012 was entered into only on 11.2.2011. The Government allowed to implement the revision of wages as recoverable advance prospectively from 2/2011 onwards by Ext.P1 order. 80% of the pay revision arrears for the period from 1/2009 to 1/2011 with regard to workmen and 80% of the pay revision arrears for the period from 1/2010 to 1/2011 was disbursed to the employees pursuant to Ext.P2 order. WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 6 Immediately thereafter, the petitioner remitted pension contribution in respect of full arrears in the month of 11/2011 itself anticipating approval for the remaining 20% of the arrears by Ext.P3 and P4 challans. After obtaining orders from the Government as per Ext.P5, the petitioner remitted pension contribution in respect of superannuated employees by Exts.P6 and P7. It was thereafter that show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to levy interest and for the belated payment of contribution.
6. It is contended that the liability of the employer to pay interest at 12% would arise only from the date on which the amount has become due till the date of actual payment. In the case on hand, the arrears have become due only when the Government issues general orders. It is further contended that the revision/disbursement of arrears having been finalized only as per Exts.P1 and P2, there could not have any delay in paying the amount and if that be the case, realization of interest for belated remittance cannot be sustained. It is also submitted that the petitioner could not have foreseen the extent of revision of Dearness Allowance which would be ordered in future and if that be the case, they cannot be burdened with payment of interest.
7. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 7 9480 of 2019 which was adopted to in W.P.(C) No.26037 of 2019. It is contended that as per the provisions of the Act, the petitioner has to pay the employees' pension fund contribution in respect of the employees and the inspection charges to the respondent organization for each month before 15th of subsequent month. Moreover, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Pension Scheme framed thereunder, the establishment is allowed to contribute to the pension fund in excess of the statutory wage limit, i.e., on full wages of the employees. As such, the employer of the establishment is remitting contribution at the rate of 12% on behalf of the employees on the basis of their actual wages in excess of statutory wage limit, out of which 8.33% is being remitted under the Employees' Pension Scheme and balance 3.66% goes to the individual provident fund account of the employees. The petitioner had failed to remit the statutory dues in time for the different periods which attracted statutory interest under Section 7Q and damages under section 14B of the EPF Act. Accordingly, separate notices were issued to the petitioner specifying the amount of dues, due date of payment and other details and they were also informed about the amount of interest leviable under section 7Q of the Act. According to the respondent, the provisions of the Act and the Scheme are applicable to all establishments equally and there cannot be any differentiation between an individual or a private/public establishment. It is WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 8 further contended that the statute does not even provide for an appeal under section 7Q of the Act and the interest leviable is statutory in nature. The pensionary benefits being directly proportional to the contributions remitted by the employer, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the interest component being compensatory in nature, cannot be borne by the petitioner. The contention raised by the petitioner, if accepted would only inure to defeat the very object of the social security legislation.
8. I have heard Smt. Latha Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that their employees have been admitted to the benefits of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. Section 6A of the EPF Act, 1952 reads as follows:
"6A. Employees' Pension Scheme.- (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a scheme to be called the Employees' Pension Scheme for the purpose of providing for-
(a) Superannuation pension, retiring pension or permanent total disablement pension to the employees of any establishment or class of establishments to which this applies; and WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 9
(b) Widow or widower's pension, children pension or orphan pension payable to the beneficiaries of such employees.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6, there shall be established, as soon as may be after framing of the Pension Scheme, a Pension Fund into which there shall be paid, from time to time, in respect of every employee who is a member of the Pension Scheme.
(a) Such sums from the employer's contribution under section 6 not exceeding 8 1/3rd per cent, of the basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance, if any, of the concerned employees, as may be specified in the Pension Scheme;
(b) Such sums as are payable by the employers of exempted establishments under sub-section (6) of section 17;
(c) The net assets of the Employees' Family Pension as on the date of the establishment of the Pension Fund;
(d) Such sums as the Central Government may, after due appropriation by Parliament by law in this behalf, specify.
(3) xxxx xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(7) xxxx xxxx xxxx
10. As is borne out from 6A(2)(a), the amount to be deducted is WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 10 1/3rd of the basic wages, Dearness Allowance and retaining allowance of the concerned employees as may be specified in the Pension Scheme. If the employer commits delay in payment of contribution, he is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% on any amount due from him in view of Section 7Q of the Act. It will be profitable to extract 7Q of the Act for easy reference.
"7Q. Interest payable by the employer- The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the Scheme on any amount due from him under this Act from the date on which the amount has become so due till the date of its actual payment:
Provided that higher rate of interest specified in the Scheme shall not exceed the lending rate of interest charged by any scheduled bank."
11. In the case on hand, even according to the petitioner, it was after obtaining orders from the Government that the Company had proceeded to remit the contribution in respect of the revised wages. However, they question the imposition of interest for the belated remittances contending that the amount became due only when the Government issued order revising the wages. It is undisputed that the amounts which have been demanded from the petitioner herein is the WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 11 interest which had occurred due to the delay in the contribution of dues to the Pension Fund in terms of Section 6A of the EPF Act. By incorporating section 7Q in the Act, an employer is made liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the Scheme, on any amount due from him under the EPF Act, from the date on which the amount became due till the date of its actual payment. It is clear from a reading of the said provision that, what is contemplated is the imposition of certain amounts which are required to compensate the fund for the delay in payment of dues. The petitioner is therefore under an unqualified statutory obligation to pay the dues and their failure to pay within the stipulated period makes them liable to pay interest. There is no discretion left for non-payment of such interest. The petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the revision of wages having come into effect at a later stage, they can be permitted to refrain from paying the interest for the belated remittances. Having paid the contributions belatedly for one reason or the other, the petitioner cannot be heard to argue that they cannot be called up to pay the statutory interest as the very purpose of levying interest is to compensate a person entitled to an amount, for the delay in receiving the said amount.
12. The contention advanced by the petitioner is liable to fail for WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 12 other reasons as well. Section 11 of the EPF Act provides for priority of payment of contributions over other debts. Section 11(2) states that without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any amount is due from an employer, whether in respect of the employees' or the employer's contribution, the amount so due shall be deemed to be the first charge on the assets of the establishment, and shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be paid in priority to all other debts. This provision was interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd V Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Others1 and it was held thus in para 49 of the report as follows:
The expression "any amount due from an employer" appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 11 has to be interpreted keeping in view the object of the Act and other provisions contained therein including sub-section (1) of Section 11 and Sections 7A, 7Q, 14B and 15(2) which provide for determination of the dues payable by the employer, liability of the employer to pay interest in case the payment of the amount due is delayed and also pay damages, if there is default in making contribution to the Fund. If any amount payable by the employer becomes due and the same is not paid within the stipulated time, then the employer is required to pay interest in terms of the mandate of Section 7Q. Likewise, default on the employer's part to pay any contribution to the Fund can visit him with the consequence of levy of damages. As mentioned earlier, sub-section (2) was 1 [2009 (1) SCC 123] WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 13 inserted in Section 11 by Amendment Act No.40 of 1973 with a view to ensure that payment of provident fund dues of the workers are not defeated by the prior claims of the secured and/or of the unsecured creditors. While enacting sub-section (2), the legislature was conscious of the fact that in terms of existing Section 11 priority has been given to the amount due from an employer in relation to an establishment to which any scheme or fund is applicable including damages recoverable under Section 14B and accumulations required to be transferred under Section 15(2). The legislature was also aware that in case of delay the employer is statutorily responsible to pay interest in terms of Section 17. Therefore, there is no plausible reason to give a restricted meaning to the expression `any amount due from the employer' and confine it to the amount determined under Section 7A or the contribution payable under Section 8. If interest payable by the employer under Section 7Q and damages leviable under Section 14 are excluded from the ambit of expression "any amount due from an employer", every employer will conveniently refrain from paying contribution to the Fund and other dues and resist the efforts of the concerned authorities to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue by contending that the movable or immovable property of the establishment is subject to other debts. Any such interpretation would frustrate the object of introducing the deeming provision and non obstante clause in Section 11(2). Therefore, it is not possible to agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellant- bank that the amount of interest payable under Section 7Q and damages leviable under Section 14B do not form part of the amount due from an employer for the purpose of Section 11(2) of the Act.
13. By retrospectively revising the wages, the employees become entitled to benefits at the revised date from the date on which the revision of wages comes into effect, and if that be the case, the employer cannot WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 14 limit the payment to the contribution alone but may have to pay the interest for the belated remittance as well. The amount due from the employer would include the interest under Section 7Q as well.
14. In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v Harrisons Malayalam Ltd2, a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to interpret section 14B of the EPF Act and its interplay with section 7Q of the Act pursuant to the amendment brought to Section 14 B of the Act by Act 33 of 1988. It would be apposite to refer to paragraph No.18 of the judgment wherein it was held as follows:
While taking away the compensatory element from Section 14B, Legislature alertly included 7Q making the employer liable to pay simple interest at 12% per annum or at specified higher rates from the date on which the amount became due, till its actual payment. The wisdom of the legislature is self evident, since before amendment Section 14B conferred absolute discretion on the authorised officer either to impose penalty or not to impose at all; in the later event of which there would be no compensation at all provided to the Organisation, which would be mulcted with the liability of interest to the employee from the date of actual dues. That, definitely, was not to be left to the discretion of the authorized officer since it does not call for any adjudication and accrual of interest in the employees account is liable to be compensated by the employer who caused the delay. Hence, Section 7Q is automatically imposed, on any delay, without any reference to 2 [2013 (3) KLT 790] WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 15 mitigating circumstances; but with reference only to the period of delay, and the rates specified. Even the previous and subsequent conduct of the employer in making prompt remittance of contribution will not be relevant in imposition of 7Q. ( emphasis supplied)
15. In other words, while arriving at the payment of interest for belated remittances under section 7Q, there is no discretion for the authorized officer. It does not call for any adjudication and accrual of interest in the employees account is liable to be compensated by the employer who caused the delay, without any reference to mitigating circumstances; but with reference only to the period of delay, and the rates specified. Even the previous and subsequent conduct of the employer in making prompt remittance of contribution will not be relevant in imposition of 7Q. If revision of wages is effected at a later date that too with retrospective effect, the employer is left with no option but to remit the contribution along with the interest element as mandated under section 7Q. The absence of mens rea does not hold any significance as the levy is automatic.
16. I am not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the date on which the amount became due was only when the order was issued by the Government revising the WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 16 wages. There is no cavil for the fact that the EPF Act is a social welfare legislation to meet the constitutional requirements to provide social security to the workers employed in the factories and establishments. It is therefore imperative for the Courts to give a purposive interpretation to the provisions contained therein keeping in view the Directive Principles of State Policy embodies in Article 38 and 43 of the Constitution. [See Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank (supra)]. It cannot be forgotten that the pensionary benefits will directly be proportional to the contribution remitted by the employer. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it would prove detrimental to the employee and will go on to debilitate the Fund. For instance, take the case of an employee of the petitioner, who retires in the year 2009/2010. Let us assume that his pay revision is effected in the year 2012 with retrospective effect from 2009. The contribution for the past years will be remitted as in the instant case with the EPF organization only in the year 2012. Immediately after revision as aforesaid, the employee will raise a claim for revision of pension for the period from 2009/2010. The computation of pension from the year 2009/2010 will have to be carried out adjusting the arrears amount received against each month since 2009/2010. If the contribution is received by the EPF organization only in the year 2012, they would certainly lose the quantum of value it would have earned, had the WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 17 remittances been made in time. The amounts could have been used for augmenting the fund and for implementing the schemes. In other words, if the wage arrears are revised retrospectively, in addition to the contribution for the period, the petitioner will certainly have to remit the interest under section 7Q for the belated remittances and there cannot be any respite from the same.
17. In Pranitiya Vidhyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation and Ors. v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and Ors. 3, the issue which arose for consideration was as to whether the arrears of wages payable by employer to workmen pursuant to a wage revision award made applicable from a back date would constitute basic wages for the time being payable within the meaning of Section 2(b) r/w. Section 6 of the EPF Act. It was held as follows in paragraph Nos. 6 to 11 of the report:
"6. Sections 2(b) and 6 of the Act which are relevant are reproduced hereunder:
"2(b). 'Basic wages' means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave with wages in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment and which are paid or payable in cash to him, but does not include--
(i) cash value of any food concession;
3 [1992 (2) SCC 723] WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 18
(ii) any dearness allowance (that is to say, all cash payments by whatever name called paid to an employee on account of a rise in the cost of living), house rent allowance, overtime allowance, bonus, commission or any other similar allowance payable to the employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employments.
(iii) any presents made by the employer.
6. Contributions and matters which may be provided for in scheme.-- The contribution which shall be paid by the employer to the fund shall be six-and-a-quarter per cent of the basic wages [dearness allowance and retaining allowance (if any)] for the time being payable to each of the employees (whether employed by him directly or by or through a contractor) and the employees' contributions shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him and may, if any employee so desires and if the scheme makes provision therefor, be an amount not exceeding eight-and- one-third per cent of his basic wages (dearness allowance and retaining allowance (if any) ...."
7. Reading the above-quoted two sections together the expression "basic wages" means:
(i) all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave;
(ii) with wages in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment;
(iii) which are paid or payable in cash; and
(iv) are payable for the time being to each of the employees.WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 19
8. When an award gives revised pay scales the employees become entitled to the revised emoluments and where the said revision is with retrospective effect, the arrears paid to the employees, as a consequence, are the emoluments earned by them while on duty.
9. We do not agree with the Division Bench of the High Court that the wages which are substituted from back-date as a result of an award under the Act are not the basic wages as defined under the Fund Act. If the original emoluments earned by an employee were "basic wages" under the Fund Act, there is no justification to hold that the substituted emoluments as a result of the award are not the "basic wages". The reference to the arbitration, the acceptance of the award by the parties and the resultant wage-increase with retrospective effect, are the direct consequences of the settlement between the workmen and the Board. We are of the view that revision of wage-structure, as a result of an award under the Act, has to be taken as a part of the contract of employment in the context of the Fund Act. This Court in Harihar Polyfibres v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation [(1984) 4 SCC 324 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 747 :
(1985) 1 SCR 712] while dealing with the definition of wages under Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 held as under:
(SCC p. 325, para 2)) "Now, under the definition, first, whatever remuneration is paid or payable to an employee under the terms of the contract of the employment, express or implied is wages; thus if remuneration is paid in terms of the original contract of employment or in terms of a settlement arrived at between the employer and the employees which by necessary implication becomes part of the contract of employment it is WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 20 wages."
10. The workmen have inherent right to collective-bargaining under the Act. The demands raised by the workmen through their unions are decided by conciliation, settlement or adjudication under the Act. These are time-consuming proceedings. When ultimately the dispute is settled/decided in workers' favour the accrued-benefit may be made available to them from back date. This is what has happened in the present case. The award given in the year 1985 has been made operative from April 1, 1980. Under the circumstances it would be in conformity with the objects of the Fund Act, which is a social welfare legislation, to hold that the revised pay scales have become part of the contract of employment with effect from April 1, 1980.
11. The expression "basic wages for the time being payable to each of the employees" under Section 6 of the Act means the "basic wages" at the relevant time. When the existing pay scales are revised with effect from back date then the revised wages posterior to that date are the "basic wages for the time being payable". The High Court in our view fell into error in giving a strained interpretation to the provisions of the Fund Act."
18. In other words, what was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that basic wages for the time being payable to each of the employees under Section 6 of the Act means the "basic wages" at the relevant time. When the existing pay scales are revised with effect from a back date, then the revised wages posterior to that date are the "basic wages for the time WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 21 being payable".
19. For the aforementioned reasons, I hold that the delay in remittance of contribution by the petitioner on account of revision of wages which was effected with retrospective effect, would attract the provisions of Section 7Q of the EPF Act and hence no interference is warranted to the orders under challenge.
These Writ Petitions will stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 22 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9480/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O NO. 5105/H3/2011/ID DATED 26-02-2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO. 1263/2011/ID DATED 14-10-2011 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF CHALLAN DATED 15-11-2011 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF PENSION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF CHALLAN DATED 16-11-2011 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF PENSION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPROVAL NO. G.O(MS) NO.
122/2012/ID DATED 12-10-2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. TO THE PETITIOENR.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CHALLAN DATED 19-11-2012 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF PENSION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF CHALLAN DATED 18-12-2012 EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF PENSION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF SHOWCAUSE NOTICE DATED 17- 04-2015 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16-06- 2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 19-01-2017 ISSUED BY BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR MODIFYING P-8 NOTICE.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 16-10- 2018 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH OF KERALA IN W.A NO. 1902/2017 AGAINST WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 23 JUDGMENT IN WP 14294/2015.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 08-11- 2018 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.A NO. 1902/2017 AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP 14294/2015.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28-01-2019 ISSUED BY RPFC, KOLLAM TO THE PETITIONER.WP(C).Nos.9480 & 26037 OF 2019 24
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26037/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.72/2015/FIN DATED 07.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.335/2015/FIN.DATED 07.08.2015 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 13.02.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1902 OF 2017.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IMPOSING INTEREST.