REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND vs MAILAMMAL,
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 15-10-2026
Pronounced on : 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE THIRUMAGAL
CHANDRASEKAR
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
CNR:{HCMD010843552014}
and
MP(MD).No.3 of 2014
Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner Employees Provident Fund
Organisation, Sub-regional Office,
Tirunelveli-627 007.
nd
..Appellant / 2 defendant
Vs
1. Mailammal,
W/o.Seeni, D.No.1/76, South St., Punkampatti, Kadayam Via,
st
Ambasamudram Taluk. .. 1 respondent / plaintiff
2. Seyed Home Industries Pvt.Ltd.
Rep.Through Its Branch Manager,
Manalkattanoor, Alankulam Taluk.
nd st
.. 2 respondent / 1 Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2010 passed in A.S.No.14 of 2009 on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram by reversing the
__________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
Judgment and decree dated 17.09.2007 passed in O.S.No.121 of 2006 on
the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.
For Appellant(s) :M/s I. Robert Chandra Kumar
M/s Standing Counsel
st
For 1 respondent : No appearance
nd
For 2 respondent : Mr. S.Karthik
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and
Decree dated 30.10.2010 made in A.S.No.14 of 2009 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram by reversing the Judgment and decree
dated 17.09.2007 passed in O.S.No.121 of 2006 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.
2. The Brief Facts of the Case are as follows:
(i). The plaintiff was employed as a beedi-rolling labourer in the
first defendant’s establishment at Ambasamudram from 01.10.1985 to
31.03.1993 and was allotted Provident Fund Account No. TN / 20885-
A/3333. Subsequently, she joined another unit of the same establishment
at Lakshmiyur on 01.04.1993 and continued her employment until
__________
Page 2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
31.03.1996, during which period she was allotted a separate Provident
Fund Account No. TN/20885-F/42.
(ii). The plaintiff contended that, owing to her illiteracy and lack of
awareness regarding the procedure for transferring provident fund
accumulations, the two accounts remained separate. Claiming that the
service rendered under both accounts was liable to be taken into
consideration for determining her eligibility for pension under the
Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, she issued a legal notice to the
second defendant seeking merger of the accounts. As the request was not
acceded to, she instituted the suit seeking a declaration and consequential
relief.
(iii). The first defendant expressed its willingness to abide by the
orders of the Court, whereas the second defendant, the Employees’
Provident Fund Organisation, contended that the plaintiff had failed to
apply for transfer of the earlier provident fund balance in accordance with
Paragraph 57(2) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. It was
further contended that the plaintiff had submitted separate claim forms
and received withdrawal benefits under both accounts and, consequently,
her membership under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, had
__________
Page 3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
ceased in terms of Paragraph 6A of the said Scheme.
(iv). The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On
appeal, the lower appellate Court modified the decree with regard to
interest and held that the plaintiff would be eligible for pension subject to
her depositing the entire withdrawal amount with interest at 8.5% per
annum.
nd
3. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant / 2 defendant has
preferred the present second appeal.
4. The Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on the following
substantial questions of law:-
1. Is it not the duty cast upon the first and second
respondents herein to intimate the appellant to merge the two
EPF accounts stands in the name of the first respondent herein?
2. Is the approach of the lower Appellate Court is
correct in violating para 6A of the Employees’ Pension
Scheme, 1995?
5. Heard Mr. I. Robert Chandra Kumar, learned Standing Counsel
__________
Page 4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
appearing for the appellant, and Mr. S. Karthick, learned counsel
appearing for the second respondent. Despite service of notice, the first
respondent/plaintiff has not appeared before this Court, either in person
or through counsel. Hence, this Court proceeds to consider the appeal on
its merits, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and the second respondent and upon perusing the materials available on
record.
st
6. The 1 respondent / plaintiff was employed as a beedi-rolling
nd st
labourer in the 2 respondent / 1 defendant’s establishment at
Ambasamudram from 01.10.1985 to 31.03.1993 and was allotted
Provident Fund Account No. TN/20885-A/3333. Subsequently, she
joined another unit of the same establishment at Lakshmiyur on
01.04.1993 and worked until 31.03.1996, under a separate Provident
st
Fund Account No. TN/20885-F/42. The 1 Respondent / Plaintiff
contended that, owing to her illiteracy and lack of awareness, the two
accounts were not merged and sought to have both periods of service
considered for pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. As
her request for merger was not accepted, she instituted the suit seeking
appropriate declaratory and consequential reliefs.
__________
Page 5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
nd st
7. The 2 respondent / 1 defendant expressed its willingness to
nd
abide by the Court’s decision. The Appellant / 2 defendant contended
that the prescribed procedure for transferring the earlier provident fund
balance under Paragraph 57(2) of the Employees’ Provident Fund
st
Scheme, 1952, had not been followed and that the 1 respondent /
plaintiff had already received withdrawal benefits under both accounts,
resulting in cessation of her pension-scheme membership under
Paragraph 6A of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.
nd
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / 2 defendant
submitted that the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are
contrary to the statutory provisions governing the transfer of provident
fund accumulations and cessation of membership under the Employees’
st
Pension Scheme, 1995. It was submitted that the 1 respondent / Plaintiff
had maintained two separate provident fund accounts and that the
prescribed procedure for transferring the balance in the earlier account
nd
had not been followed. The appellant / 2 defendant could not be
expected to identify and consolidate the previous account without the
requisite particulars being furnished by the employee or the employer. He
st
further contended that the 1 respondent / plaintiff had submitted separate
claim forms and received withdrawal benefits under both accounts. Once
__________
Page 6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
the withdrawal benefit contemplated under Paragraph 14 of the
Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, had been availed, her membership
ceased by operation of Paragraph 6A of the Scheme. Therefore, the lower
appellate Court was not justified in directing the grant of monthly pension
merely upon repayment of the withdrawn amount with interest. The
learned counsel accordingly prayed that the judgments and decrees of the
Courts below be set aside.
9. The duty of the parties to furnish the necessary particulars for
transferring the provident fund accumulations from the earlier account to
the subsequent account. The paragraph 57(2) of the Employees’
Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, deals with the transfer of provident fund
accumulations in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Where an
employee changes the unit in which she is employed and a separate
provident fund account is allotted, the necessary particulars must be
furnished and the prescribed procedure followed to facilitate the transfer
st
of the earlier balance. In the present case, the 1 respondent / plaintiff
was employed in two units of the same establishment during successive
periods. However, separate provident fund account numbers were
nd
maintained, and the appellant / 2 defendant contended that the
prescribed procedure for transferring the earlier account balance had not
__________
Page 7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
st
been followed. The 1 respondent / plaintiff’s explanation that she was
unaware of the procedure owing to her illiteracy may explain the
circumstances in which the accounts remained separate, though the
explanation of illiteracy may evoke sympathy, dura lex sed lex ; statutory
requirements cannot be dispensed with on that ground alone. The
nd
appellant / 2 defendant, being the authority administering the provident
fund, cannot be faulted merely for failing to consolidate the accounts
when the requisite particulars and prescribed application have not been
furnished. Nevertheless, the failure to transfer the accounts does not, by
itself, extinguish any pension entitlement that may otherwise be available
under the applicable provisions of the Scheme. The question of
transferring provident fund accumulations must be distinguished from the
question of eligibility for pension, which is governed by the provisions of
the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.
10. On considering the effect of Paragraph 6A of the Employees’
Pension Scheme, 1995, the said provision stipulates the circumstances in
which membership of the Employees’ Pension Fund ceases, including the
availing of the withdrawal benefit to which a member is entitled under
Paragraph 14 of the Scheme. Where an employee has availed the
withdrawal benefit contemplated under Paragraph 14 of Employees’
__________
Page 8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
Pension Scheme, 1995, cessation of membership follows in accordance
with Paragraph 6A. It is necessary to distinguish the withdrawal of
ordinary provident fund accumulations from the withdrawal benefit
specifically granted under Paragraph 14 of the Employees’ Pension
Scheme, 1995. The application of Paragraph 6A must therefore be based
st
on the nature of the benefit actually received by the 1 respondent /
plaintiff, as established by the relevant claim forms and payment records.
nd st
The appellant / 2 defendant has specifically contended that the 1
respondent / plaintiff submitted separate claim forms and received
withdrawal benefits under both accounts. As the records establishes that
she received the withdrawal benefit contemplated under Paragraph 14,
the statutory consequence under Paragraph 6A must be given effect to. In
st
such circumstances, the 1 respondent / plaintiff cannot claim restoration
of her membership merely on the ground that the two accounts related to
successive periods of employment in units belonging to the same
establishment.
st
11. The lower appellate Court directed the 1 respondent / plaintiff
to deposit the entire amount withdrawn, together with interest at the rate
of 8.5% per annum, and held that she would thereupon become eligible
for monthly pension. However, repayment of the amount withdrawn with
__________
Page 9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
interest and restoration of membership under the Pension Scheme are
distinct matters. The former concerns repayment of money, whereas the
latter depends upon the statutory provisions governing membership and
pension eligibility. A Court cannot assume that repayment of the
withdrawal amount automatically reverses the legal consequences of a
completed withdrawal. Unless the applicable provisions of the Scheme
authorise restoration of membership in the circumstances established by
st
the evidence, the lower appellate Court cannot revive the 1 respondent /
plaintiff’s pension entitlement merely by imposing a condition of
repayment. The direction to deposit the withdrawn amount with interest
cannot, by itself, create a statutory right to pension where the requisite
conditions for membership and eligibility are no longer satisfied.
st
12. The 1 respondent / plaintiff’s employment in two units of the
same establishment is relevant to the determination of her qualifying
service. However, the mere existence of separate provident fund accounts
does not conclusively determine her entitlement to pension. The periods
of employment must be examined in accordance with the applicable
provisions governing eligible service and pensionable service under the
Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. Even where both periods of
employment would otherwise qualify for consideration, such aggregation
__________
Page 10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
cannot override a statutory cessation of membership if the conditions
prescribed under Paragraph 6A have been fulfilled.
13. On a consideration of the materials placed on record and the
nd
submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant / 2 defendant, this
Court is of the view that the lower appellate Court was not justified in
directing the grant of monthly pension merely upon repayment of the
withdrawal amount with interest, without determining the legal
consequence of the withdrawal benefit under Paragraph 6A of the
Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. Where the relevant records establish
st
that the 1 respondent / plaintiff had availed the withdrawal benefit
under Paragraph 14 and that her membership had consequently ceased,
the lower appellate Court’s direction permitting her to obtain pension
solely upon repayment cannot be sustained in the absence of an
applicable statutory provision authorising restoration of membership.
14. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in
nd
favour of the appellant / 2 defendant. The judgment and decree dated
30.10.2010 passed by the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram, in
A.S.No.14 of 2009, insofar granting pension merely upon repayment of
the amount withdrawn with interest, are legally unsustainable where
__________
Page 11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
cessation of membership under Paragraph 6A is established by the
records.
15. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed, and the judgment
and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed in A.S.No.14 of 2009 on the file of
the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram, modifying the judgment and
decree dated 17.09.2007 passed in O.S.No.121 of 2006 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram, are set aside. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
T. RAJAPRABA
Copy To :
1. The Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram
2. The Principal District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram.
3. Section Officer ( VR Section )
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
__________
Page 12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )
2026:MHC:4451
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR, J.
T.RAJAPRABA
SA(MD) No. 353 of 2014
03-11-2026
__________
Page 13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:35:33 pm )