Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

James Vs. Accountant General

James vs Accountant General

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 01, 2006
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/723767

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
O.P. No. 12193 of 2001
Subject
Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - P9 order as well as the counter affidavit is that the subscription in excess of basic pay towards contribution is not contemplated and if any such contribution is made the same shall not be treated as subscription so as to enure interest. In view of the definition of emoluments as appearing at Rule 2(b) the sa...

Key legal issue
Service
Acts & sections
Kerala General Provident Fund Rules - Rules 2, 11 and 11(1); Kerala Service Rules

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

James

Advocate K.A. Abraham,; S.S. Nair and; Biju Martin, Advs.

Respondent

Accountant General

Advocate P.K. Shakeela, Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts
Kerala General Provident Fund Rules - Rules 2, 11 and 11(1); Kerala Service Rules
Reported In
2006(2)KLT870

Excerpt

- - p9 order as well as the counter affidavit is that the subscription in excess of basic pay towards contribution is not contemplated and if any such contribution is made the same shall not be treated as subscription so as to enure interest. in view of the definition of emoluments as appearing at rule 2(b) the same shall include dearness pay as well......in terms of the general provident fund (kerala) rules and what is the subscription which attracts interest are the simple question to be decided in this case. the subscriber to the general provident fund is entitled to make subscription in terms of rule 11. rule 11 reads as follows:11(1) the amount of subscription shall be fixed by the subscriber himself, subject to the following conditions.(a) it shall be expressed in whole rupees.(b) it may be any sum, so expressed, not less than 6 percent of his emoluments and not more than his emoluments.2. the minimum mandatory subscription is not less man 6%'of the emoluments and the maximum is the total emoluments. the term 'emoluments' is defined in rule 2(b) which reads as follows:-except where otherwise expressly provided 'emoluments' means pay, leave salary or subsistence allowance as defined in the kerala service rules or other service rules applicable to the officer concerned and includes dearness pay appropriate to pay, leave salary or subsistence allowance if admissible and any remuneration of the nature pay received in respect of foreign service.3. since emoluments for the purpose of subscription to general provident fund includes dearness pay also, the minimum or maximum amount of subscription has to be quantified based on the emoluments which includes dearness pay. the basis of such compensation is not the basic pay but the pay including the dearness allowance. the stand taken in the impugned ext. p9 order as well as the counter affidavit is that the subscription in excess of basic pay towards contribution is not contemplated and if any such contribution is made the same shall not be treated as subscription so as to enure interest. learned government pleader inviting reference to the counter affidavit submits that emoluments should take only pay, leave salary and allowances as contended by the petitioner. i am afraid the contention cannot be appreciated. in view of the definition of emoluments as appearing at.....

Full Judgment

Kurian Joseph, J.

1. What is the subscription in terms of the General Provident Fund (Kerala) Rules and what is the subscription which attracts interest are the simple question to be decided in this case. The subscriber to the General Provident Fund is entitled to make subscription in terms of Rule 11. Rule 11 reads as follows:

11(1) The amount of subscription shall be fixed by the subscriber himself, subject to the following conditions.

(a) It shall be expressed in whole rupees.

(b) It may be any sum, so expressed, not less than 6 percent of his emoluments and not more than his emoluments.

2. The minimum mandatory subscription is not less man 6%'of the emoluments and the maximum is the total emoluments. The term 'emoluments' is defined in Rule 2(b) which reads as follows:-

Except where otherwise expressly provided 'emoluments' means pay, leave salary or subsistence allowance as defined in the Kerala Service Rules or other Service Rules applicable to the officer concerned and includes dearness pay appropriate to pay, leave salary or subsistence allowance if admissible and any remuneration of the nature pay received in respect of foreign service.

3. Since emoluments for the purpose of subscription to General Provident Fund includes dearness pay also, the minimum or maximum amount of subscription has to be quantified based on the emoluments which includes dearness pay. The basis of such compensation is not the basic pay but the pay including the dearness allowance. The stand taken in the impugned Ext. P9 order as well as the counter affidavit is that the subscription in excess of basic pay towards contribution is not contemplated and if any such contribution is made the same shall not be treated as subscription so as to enure interest. Learned Government Pleader inviting reference to the counter affidavit submits that emoluments should take only pay, leave salary and allowances as contended by the petitioner. I am afraid the contention cannot be appreciated. In view of the definition of emoluments as appearing at Rule 2(b) the same shall include dearness pay as well. A subscriber to the General Provident Fund is hence entitled to make contribution not exceeding the total emoluments which includes dearness pay, for the purpose of statutory interest. However, if the subscription exceeds such emoluments including pay and dearness allowance, the excess shall not attract interest. I quash Ext.P9. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh and in case the petitioner has limited the subscription to an amount not exceeding the emoluments as per the position as clarified in the judgment he shall be paid the statutory interest. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from(the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner.

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial