WA NO. 54 OF 2023 1 2025:KER:24700 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S. MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO. 54 OF 2023 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.02.2022 IN WP(C) NO.26307 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: RUGHMANI (RETIRED CLERK), AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.SETHUMADHAVAN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE PRINTING PRESS LTD NO. E-119, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT KUNNATH HOUSE, EROOR, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682306. BY ADVS. N.V.VINAY ARUN P. ANTONY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEE PENSION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALA NIVAS, P.B NO. 85, CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001. WA NO. 54 OF 2023 2 2025:KER:24700 2 THE SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE PRINTING PRESS LTD. NO.E-119, MILLS LANE, CHURCH LANDING ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682016. BY ADVS. M.SASINDRAN, SC, KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE K.S.ARUN KUMAR EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD ARYA B. VENUGOPAL VIJAY SANKAR V.H. JERIN JOSEPH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2025, THE COURT ON 24.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA NO. 54 OF 2023 3 2025:KER:24700 J U D G M E N T Muralee Krishna, J. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26307 of 2019 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, being dissatisfied by the judgment dated 11.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent the Secretary Ernakulam District Co-operative Printing Press Ltd. to remit the pension contribution to the pension fund of the 1st respondent the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board and also a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to sanction the monthly pension to the appellant and disburse the same with arrears within a time limit, was dismissed. 2. The appellant who was an employee of the 2nd respondent Society retired from service on 31.12.2006. She worked in the Society from 10.08.1973. According to her, she received retirement benefits in installments from 2010 to 2019, but has not received any amount towards pension. She pleads that the 2nd respondent has not made any contribution towards the WA NO. 54 OF 2023 4 2025:KER:24700 pension fund in respect of the appellant though the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to remit the employer’s contribution towards the pension scheme. She alleges that Ext.P2 representation submitted by her has not been responded to by the 2nd respondent. Having considered the rival contentions raised by the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant had not disclosed the entire facts while approaching the Court with the writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted the appellant retired from the service in the year 2006 and as per Ext.R2(a) letter dated 08.05.2017, the Assistant Registrar of Co- operative Societies directed the president of the employer of the appellant to remit employer’s contribution to the 1st respondent Board. In Ext.R2(b) writ petition also the appellant has alleged inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in paying Rs.66,410/- being the portion of the pensionary benefits due to the appellant. WA NO. 54 OF 2023 5 2025:KER:24700 The 2nd respondent has to pay the employer’s contribution to the 1st respondent so as to facilitate the 1st respondent to pay pension to the appellant as per the pension scheme. 5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent board submitted that the employer’s contribution toward the pension fund was not paid by the 2nd respondent and only if the payment is made, the board can pay pension to the appellant. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that all the amounts due to the appellant were paid by the bank. Even the employer's contribution was received by the appellant and she did not refund the portion of the employer's contribution and she approached this Court with a false claim. After the disposal of W.P.(C) No.7141 of 2019, the portion of the amount stated as due in that writ petition was also paid to the appellant. 6. In the writ petition, the appellant claimed that she had not received any money towards her pension. According to her, the 2nd respondent has not remitted the employer's contribution towards the pension scheme. However, in the counter affidavit WA NO. 54 OF 2023 6 2025:KER:24700 filed by the 2nd respondent, this contention of the appellant was denied. Paragraphs 5 to 7 of that counter affidavit read thus: “5. The averments in paragraph 1 of the writ petition are incorrect and hence denied. The petitioner has agreed that she has received her entire dues including all retirement benefits of Rs.2,93,410/- as final settlement and she has received the said amounts, except Rs.66410/. The said amount of Rs.66410/- was ready with this respondent and the petitioner did not bother to collect the same from the respondent society. The said amount of Rs.66410/- was later collected by her on 04.07.2009 by cheque and thus the entire due amount was duly paid to her. That an employee, who has received the contributory provident fund shall be eligible for pension only on the refund of that portion of the employers contribution in the contributory provident fund together with interest thereon to the pension fund before applying for pension. The petitioner has not refunded employers contribution with interest or not even applied for pension. The length of services as stated by the petitioner is not correct. The allegations contrary to the same in the petition and her affidavit are absolutely false. 6. The averments in paragraphs 3 & 4 of the writ petition are incorrect and hence denied. The petitioner did not pay any contribution to the pension scheme. The petitioner has received a total amount of Rs.2,93,410/- as retirement benefits. Out of this an amount of Rs.46,061/- received as provident fund, Rs.36,950/- as terminal surrender, WA NO. 54 OF 2023 7 2025:KER:24700 Rs.50,535/- as subsistence allowance, Rs.90,097/- Retrenchment allowance, and Rs.69767/- as gratuity. The petitioner is not entitled to get any pension contribution. The second respondent has duly issued reply to the first respondent stating that the petitioner is not entitled any other pension benefits. The answering respondent is not withholding any payment. The answering respondent is in fact in very serious financial problems and not able to pay salary to the present employees. 7. The petitioner in this case knowingly suppressed the material facts from this Hon'ble Court and approached this Hon'ble Court with most unclean hands to abuse the process of law to wreak vengeance on the second respondent, who had not conceded to illegal demands. The petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.7141 of 2019 and Contempt case No.1168 of 19 for pension and retirement benefits. Again filing this writ petition by the petitioner is an abuse of process and the petitioner is not entitled any reliefs.” 7. Section 18 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme, 1994 which was extracted in the statement filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent as well as in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, reads thus: “18. Eligibility for Pension:-- (1) Every employee of a society to which this Scheme applies shall, subject to the WA NO. 54 OF 2023 8 2025:KER:24700 other provisions of the Scheme, be eligible for pension under this Scheme; Provided that an employee, who has received the contributory Provident Fund shall be eligible for pension only on the refund of that portion of the employers' contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund together with interest thereon to the Pension Fund before applying for pension. xxx xxx xxx" 8. As found by the learned Single Judge, as per the Proviso to Section 18(1) of the Scheme, an employee, who has received the contributory Provident Fund shall be eligible for pension only on the refund of that portion of the employers’ contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund together with interest thereon to the Pension Fund before applying for pension. 9. The appellant has received various amounts towards her retirement benefits as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent which is not disputed by her by filing any reply affidavit. The receipt of Rs.66,410/- by the appellant after the disposal of her previous writ petition and contempt case filed by her is not disclosed in the writ petition. Since she failed to comply with the stipulation in Section 18 of the Scheme, the learned WA NO. 54 OF 2023 9 2025:KER:24700 Single Judge rightly found that she is not entitled for the relief sought in the writ petition. 10. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the bar, we find no sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge. In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/- MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-