KRISHNAKUMAR K.G. Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is presently the Managing Director of KELTRON Component Complex Ltd., which is an establishment covered under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Formerly, the petitioner was employed with the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Thiruvananthapuram, for the period from 24- 01-1985 to 28/6/2006. The petitioner is a member of the Employees' Pension Scheme. The petitioner is before this court being aggrieved by the fact that though the petitioner wanted to file an option for grant of higher pension within the time specified by the Supreme Court in EPFO and another v. Sunil Kumar B. and others; 2022 (7) KHC 12 (as extended) the petitioner was unable to do so since there was a mistake in the name as well as the date of birth of the petitioner in the records maintained by the Provident Fund Organisation. The petitioner is thus before this court seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Sri. P. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submits that since the option has to be made online, the petitioner made every possible effort to get the name and date of birth in the records corrected, as he was unable to file the option without the correction being carried out. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the Provident Fund Organisation should have permitted the petitioner to exercise the option within a reasonable time after the correction of the name and date of birth of the petitioner. It is submitted that since the correction was carried out after the last date fixed for filing the option, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to seek relief from this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation would submit that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had attempted to get the record corrected before the last date fixed for filing options for higher pension. It is submitted that, in the absence of any material to show that, within the option period, the petitioner had attempted to get his name and date of birth corrected, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the petitioner was not in a position to file the option within the specified time.