AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner says that he was working with the 3rd respondent - Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., and that he retired, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.10.2014. He says that he had subscribed to the Employees Provident Fund and the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, constituted under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and that he has been drawing his pension on the actual salary computed on the basis of the average pay drawn by him during the period of sixty months prior to his age of superannuation.
The petitioner, however, alleges that the 1st respondent has not adopted the correct figure of his salary for determining the pension and that Exts.P3 and P4 would substantiate this.
The petitioner, through his learned counsel - Sri.M.P.Prakash therefore, says that the he has preferred Exts.P6 and P7 representations before the 1st respondent to correct the afore mistake; but alleges that no action has been taken by the said Authority until now. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that Exts.P6 and P7 be directed to be taken up and disposed of at the earliest.
In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the provident Fund Commissioner, Sri.Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, submits that there does not appear to be any legal impediment in Exts.P6 and P7 being disposed of; but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declaration as to the entitlement of the petitioners to any relief and leave it to the competent Authority to take a decision on it in terms of law.
Smt.Latha Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, submitted that her client does not have a role to play in the controversy in question at this time and thus prayed that no further orders be issued against them. Taking note of the afore submissions and since the petitioner only seeks that Exts.P6 and P7 representations be directed to be disposed of, I order this writ petition and direct the 1st respondent to take up the said representations and decide on the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - either physically or through videoconferencing - culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is thus ordered.