P.M.MOHANAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a retired employee of the Kerala Artisans Development Corporation Ltd., had superannuated from service on 31.5.2014. He approached the respondents 2 to 4 and sought for benefits in tune with the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court . The respondents by Ext.P7 communication dated 24.2.2020 informed the petitioner that in order to make himself eligible for higher pension, contribution under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 is to be remitted on his full wages from 16.11.1995 on which date, his wages had crossed the statutory wage ceiling. He was informed that on the basis of the annual returns submitted and the EPF contributions made by the 5 th respondent, the amount payable by him into the Pension Fund on his actual salary from 16.11.1995 till the date of leaving of service along with interest accrued upto date had been calculated as Rs.3,21,160/-. He was ordered to remit the aforementioned amount on or before 29.2.2020 by demand draft payable at Kozhikode in favour of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. He was also informed that if the amount is remitted after the stipulated date as above, he would be liable to pay interest. The petitioner was also ordered to surrender certain documents. In terms of the directions issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner remitted the amount on 27.2.2020 itself along with the required documents.

(2.) I have considered the submissions advanced.

(3.) In view of Sasikumar (supra), the respondents are not justified in refusing to accept the demand draft produced by the petitioner and in failing to disburse the pensionary benefits due to him. It is evident from the materials produced before this Court that the petitioner had remitted the amount, which was ordered to be remitted by the 4 th respondent. The respondents 2 to 4 have no explanation to offer as to why the request submitted by the petitioner and produced as Ext.P9 has not been considered by them.