Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 309 (KER)

Rajeev P v. Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

2026-03-17

Basant Balaji, Devan Ramachandran

body2026
JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. Sri.K.Sasikumar – learned counsel for the appellants, submits that his clients have been constrained to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P(C)Nos.24917/2019 and 25032/2019, solely because their request, for being allowed to continue under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 (‘1995 Scheme’) has been rejected; but without adverting to the specific liberty reserved to persons like them by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), that were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the State of Kerala. 2. Smt.Nita N.S. - learned Standing Counsel for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), in response, submitted that the appellants are not eligible to continue under the ‘1995 Scheme’ because of an earlier notification; and axiomatically, they would not get the benefit of the liberty reserved to other persons in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. Sri.M.Sasindran – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board; and Sri.Gilbert George Correya – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State co-operative Bank Ltd., adopted the afore submissions of Smt.Nita N.S., but added that they will abide by any judgment to be delivered by this Court. 4. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, affirmed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that any ‘eligible person’ can approach the State; and that the latter can then decide whether they fall within the parameters to continue under the ‘1995 Scheme’. He argued that, when the appellants are not eligible at all, the said judgment would not apply to them. 5. Sri.K.Sasikumar, in response, submitted that the afore recorded arguments of Smt.Nita N.S. are incorrect; and that his clients were never exempted from the purview of the ‘1995 Scheme’; since the notification issued to that effect has already been quashed. 6. We have considered the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the judgment impugned. 7. We notice that the essential claim of the appellants is that, those among them who had made no option, be allowed to continue in the ‘1995 Scheme’; while, the options given by the others be deemed to be cancelled because they did so erroneously. 8. We have considered the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the judgment impugned. 7. We notice that the essential claim of the appellants is that, those among them who had made no option, be allowed to continue in the ‘1995 Scheme’; while, the options given by the others be deemed to be cancelled because they did so erroneously. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with analogous claims, declared, in the SLPs filed by the State, as under: "Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the final figure which emerges is that there are 333 persons identified. Benefits has thus been extended to another set of respondents as was denied earlier. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant states that the scheme can be worked out for the aforesaid number of persons. We are inclined to dispose of the matters in terms as aforesaid. If any eligible person still, who is before the Court is left out, they may also approach the appellant-State and if it falls within the parameters we are sure the appellant-State will work out for those number of people also which are said to be in maximum two digit figures. The scheme which has now been accepted in terms of the present order will naturally be in super-session of the impugned orders. Liberty is granted to move in case of difficulty.” 9. It is luculent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that, if there is any ‘eligible person’ who is still before the Court and who feels left out, they can approach the State - meaning the State of Kerala. 10. The question whether the appellants are eligible or not, within the ambit of the afore liberty reserved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court , is a question in the realm of facts, into which, this Court cannot enter, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. If any of the appellants believe that they are entitled to the liberty as reserved to them by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they ought to move the State of Kerala appropriately. 12. The learned Single Judge did not consider this because, such a plea does not seem to have been impelled before it; and we are certain that, if it had been done, the conclusions entered would have aligned with our view above. 13. 12. The learned Single Judge did not consider this because, such a plea does not seem to have been impelled before it; and we are certain that, if it had been done, the conclusions entered would have aligned with our view above. 13. In the afore circumstances, though we cannot find the judgment of the learned Single Judge to be in error; we deem it necessary that the appellants be left liberty to invoke any remedy that they may obtain, based on the afore extracted order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. However, this is not to construe that this Court has, in any manner, affirmed any eligibility of the appellants; and it is for them to establish such as per law, based on cogent and relevant materials and inputs. Resultantly, we allow these Appeals, to the limited extent of clarifying that, notwithstanding the observations of the learned Single Judge, the appellants will be at liberty to move the competent Authority of the State of Kerala in terms of the liberty reserved in the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; however, further clarifying that this does not mean that this Court has declared any eligibility affirmatively in their favour. Needless to say, if the appellants, or any one of them, are to do as afore, then the competent Authority of the State will consider their application in terms of law, adverting to all provisions and requisites, and after affording necessary opportunities of being heard to them, as also to all the official respondents.