Karnataka High Court
Sri. Rudraiah. H. M vs Union Of India on 4 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No.8374/2021 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RUDRAIAH H.M.
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O. H.R. MURIGAIAH,
NO.171/A, JAYARAM LAYOUT,
NEAR SCHOOL OF INDIA,
BANERGHATTA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 083.
2. SRI. S. SUNDER RAM
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O. S.N. SHAM RAO,
S-61/70, MAYA INDRAPRASTHA APARTMENT,
J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE,
KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
3. SRI. JAGANNATHA RAO K.V.
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O. VENKATARAMAIAH,
NO.183/A(34), 11TH CROSS,
III BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
4. SRI. N.B. MARATHE
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O. BASWANTRAO MARATHE,
SRI VENKATESH NIVAS,
NEW SANTHOSH COLONY,
ALAND ROAD,
KALBURGI - 585 101.
-2-
5. SRI. HAMPALI P.D.
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O. DANDAPPA HAMPALI,
NO.33, "GANGA",
I & II CROSS, VINOBANAGAR,
SHIMOGA - 577 201.
6. SRI. M.S. RAMACHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O. M.S. ONKARAPPA,
F204, GOPALAN TEMPLE TREES
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
J.P.NAGR 6TH PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
7. SRI. PARMESHWAR N.
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O. G. NARAYANSWAMY,
NO.286, I CROSS,
SOMESHWARAPURA, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
8. SRI. C. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O. LATE CHIKKANNA,
NO.35, 5TH MAIN, II CROSS,
CPV-BLOCK, GANGANAGAR EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
9. SRI. RAVISHANKAR HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O. T. ANNAIAH HEGDE,
G1, GROUND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS,
BOOPASANDRA, RMV EXTENSION
KARNATAKA - 560 094.
10. SRI. K. HONNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KAREGOWDA,
NO. 46, 7TH CROSS, BSK-III STAGE,
3RD PHASE, 5TH BLOCK,
YAMAHA SHOWROOM ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
-3-
11. SRI. RUDRESHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VEERANNA,
#393, SHIVANAGAR LAYOUT,
JAKKASANDRA DAKALE,
KUNIGAL BYPASS,
NELAMANGALA TOWN - 562 123.
12. SRI. SHIVAMADU
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. MADAPPA,
#66/150/3, 9TH CROSS, 22ND MAIN,
H.S.R. LAYOUT, AGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
13. SRI. D.B. DAYANIDI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE D. BASAPPA,
S.R.S.NILAYA, GEDDALAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
TUMKUR - 572 104.
14. SRI. A.S. PALAKSHAIAI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. SANNATHATHAIAH,
NO.41, MOOKAMBIKA KRUPA,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
15. SRI. GANGADHARA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NAGARAJAPPA,
NO.46, 5TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNAIAH LAYOUT,
MALGALA MAIN ROAD,
NAGARBHAVI II STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
16. SRI. P.O. NAGABHUSHAN
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE CHINNARAMANA P.,
112/E, SYNDICATE BANK COLONY,
5TH CROSS, BANNERGHATTA,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
-4-
17. SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NANJE GOWDA,
NO.86A, KUVEPU LAYOUT,
LAXMIDEVI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 096.
18. SRI. A.V. CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA,
MIRZA LAYOUT, NALLAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR MILK DAIRY, ANEKAL,
BENGALURU - 502 106.
19. SRI. C. PADMANABHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
S/O. A. CHINNAPPA,
NO.8/88, NALLAPPA LAYOUT,
NALLAPPA LAYOUT,
NEAR MILK DAIRY, ANEKAL,
BENGALURU - 502 106.
20. SRI. SHIVLINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
S/O. BETTAIAH,
NO.67, 7TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
RUKMINI NAGAR, 8TH MILE,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 073.
21. SRI. T. RAMU
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O. LATE THIMMEGOWDA,
NO.255/21, 7TH 'B' CROSS,
JAKKASANDRA,
KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
22. SRI. CHIKKARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. LATE CHELUVAIAH,
NO.37, 5TH MAIN,
-5-
BYTARAYANAPURA NEW EXTENSION,
M.M. ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
23. SRI. B.N. REDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NAGAPPA
NO.105/4B, 1ST FLOOR,
MATHUSRI NILAYA,
3RD CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
BALAJI LAYOUT, HONGASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
24. SRI. CHIKKA HONNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BYREGOWDA,
NO.14, 4TH CROSS,
KATRIGUPPE MAIN ROAD,
VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 085.
25. SRI. V. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE VENKATARAMAIAH,
NO.89/A, 4TH CROSS,
BRINDAVAN NAGAR, CHIKKA ADUGODI,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
26. SRI. B.H. DODDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE HUCHHAPPA,
NO.26, 2ND MAIN, NEAR R.R.SCHOOL,
MUNESHWARASWAMY LAYOUT,
DODDABOMMASANDRA,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 097.
27. SRI. R. SUDHAKARA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O. S.M.CHIKKAMARAIAH REDDY,
5, 1ST MAIN, I CROSS, S.G.PALYA,
D.R.C.POST,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
-6-
28. SRI. K.B. GURANNA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BASANNA,
NO.6, 2ND MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
NEAR SIDDIVINAYAKA NURSING HOME,
TAVAREKERE,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
29. SRI. B.H. BEEMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA,
OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM SHAKTHI LAYOUT,
7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
GARVEBHAVI PALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
30. SRI. BADREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O. LATE BADREGOWDA,
NO.36, I MAIN, N.T.V.LAYOUT,
RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 026.
31. SRI. GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
S/O. GIRIYAPPA,
NO.64, II FLOOR, I MAIN, I CROSS,
RAJA REDDY LAYOUT,
NAGASANDRA POST,
BENGALURU - 560 073.
32. SRI. N. PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
S/O. LATE NANJEGOWDA,
NAMBINAYAKANAHALLY,
KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428.
33. SRI. G.R. SHADAKSHARI
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
S/O. REVANNAIAH,
-7-
NO.48, 17TH 'A' CROSS,
N.S.PALYA, BTM II STAGE, 16TH MAIN,
BANGALORE - 560 076.
34. SRI. SIDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH,
SAMRAT LAYOUT, AREKERE,
B.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
35. SRI. A. BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. ADAPPA,
SR MILK DESPATCHER, BAMUL,
BANGALORE - 560 029.
36. SRI RAMAIAH D.
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O. VENKATAGIRIAPPA,
4TH CROSS, NAGASANDRA (POST),
NEAR RAGHAVENDRA CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 073.
37. MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
S/O. SHAMBAPPA,
# 25, SHANKARAPPA EXTENSION,
NEAR SILICON VALLEY SCHOOL,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
GOVINDA SHETTY PALYA,
BANGALORE - 560 100. ... PETITIONERS
(NOTE: PETITIONERS 1 TO 37 ARE
ALL SENIOR CITIZENS,
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
(BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT,
-8-
SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
(MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA),
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN,
14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI - 110 066.
REPRESENTED BY
THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER, (CPFC).
3. THE ADDL. CENTRAL P.F. COMMISSIONER (HQ)
ZONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA: GOA
EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
"KAVERI", BHAVISHYA NIDHI ENCLAVE
HMT MAIN ROAD, JALAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 013.
4. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER
EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU - 1
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,,
# 13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
5. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER
EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE,
KORAMANGALA
"ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX",
# 37/1, 6TH MAIN,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
SINGASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 068
6. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER
EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, YELAHANKA
# 2, MARUTHI COMPLEX,
1ST "A" MAIN, HIG "A" SECTOR,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 064
-9-
7. THE REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER
REGIONAL OFFICE,
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ALAND ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 101
8. THE KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS'
FEDERATION LIMITED
KMF COMPLEX, M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD,
HOSUR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
9. BENGALURU URBAN,
BENGALURU RURAL AND
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK
PRODUCERS' SOCIETIES UNION LTD.,
DR. M.H.MARI GOWDA ROAD,
BANGALURU - 560 029.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.S. ANASUYADEVI, CGC FOR R-1;
SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-7;
SRI B. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-8;
SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT PF AUTHORITIES TO PAY INTEREST ON THE ARREARS
OF PENSION FROM THE DATE OF RETIREMENT TILL THE DATE OF
PAYMENT SINCE THEY HAVE ALREADY COLLECTED INTEREST ON
THE DIFFERENCE OF CONTRIBUTION BY ISSUING THE DEMAND
NOTES VIDE ANNEXURE B TO B-36 STATED IN PRAYER TO THE
PETITIONER INTER ALIA THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF
MADHYA PRADESH DATED 16.12.2019 IN W.A.NO.1441/2019
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 11/07/2023 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
- 10 -
ORDER
The petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs:
"a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent PF Authorities to pay interest on the arrears of pension from the date of retirement till the date of payment since they have already collected interest on the difference of contribution by issuing the following demand notes-
Sl. Annexure Demand Letter No. Issued by No. No. and Date Respondent No. 1 B KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(1)/ 5 /2018-19 dated 29.09.2018 to Petitioner No.1.
2 B1 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(1)/ 5/2018-19 dated 29.09.2018 to Petitioner No.2.
3 B2 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(1)/ 5/2018-19 dated 27.11.2018 to Petitioner No.3.
4 B3 KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 592(1)/80/2018-19 dated 27.10.2018 to Petitioner No.4.
5 B4 KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 592(3)/65/2018-19 dated 14.12.2018 to Petitioner No.5.
6 B5 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(1)/ 543 /2018-19 dated 03.12.2018 to Petitioner No.6.
- 11 -
7 B6 KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 592(5)/214/2018-19 dated 01.02.2019 to Petitioner No.7.
8 B7 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(1)/ 5 61 /2018-19 dated 14.12.2018 to Petitioner No.8.
9 B8 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(3)/ 5 68 /2018-19 dated 14.12.2018 to Petitioner No.9.
10 B9 KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 592(5)/203/2018-19 dated 01.02.2019 to Petitioner No.10.
11 B10 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/313 dated 07.11.2018 to Petitioner No.11.
12 B11 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/348 dated 01.12.2018 to Petitioner No.12.
13 B12 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 592(5)/2018-19/184 dated 01.02.2019 to Petitioner No.13.
14 B13 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(5)/ 5 228 /2018-19 dated 13.02.2019 to Petitioner No.14.
15 B14 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 592(5)/2018-19/171 dated 28.01.2019 to Petitioner No.15.
16 B15 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/435 dated 28.12.2018 to Petitioner No.16.
- 12 -
17 B16 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/161 dated 28.01.2019 to Petitioner No.17.
18 B17 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(5)/ 5 236 /2018-19 dated 13.02.2019 to Petitioner No.18.
19 B18 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/220 dated 13.02.2019 to Petitioner No.19.
20 B19 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/322 dated 09.11.2018 to Petitioner No.20.
21 B20 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-11(1)/ 5 380 /2018-19 dated 10.12.2018 to Petitioner No.21.
22 B21 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/354 dated 01.12.2018 to Petitioner No.22.
23 B22 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-11(1)/ 5 368 /2018-19 dated 05.12.2018 to Petitioner No.23.
24 B23 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 592(5)/2018-19/179 dated 01.02.2019 to Petitioner No.24.
25 B24 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/349 dated 22.11.2018 to Petitioner No.25.
26 B25 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/350 dated 01.12.2018 to Petitioner No.26.
- 13 -
27 B26 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 92(5)/2018-19/178 dated 01.02.2019 to Petitioner No.27.
28 B27 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 92(5)/2018-19/160 dated 28.01.2019 to Petitioner No.28.
29 B28 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 92(5)/2018-19/135 dated 18.01.2019 to Petitioner No.29.
30 B29 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 11(1)/2018-19/334 dated 22.11.2018 to Petitioner No.30.
31 B30 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 11(1)/2018-19/423 dated 28.12.2018 to Petitioner No.31.
32 B31 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 92(5)/2018-19/169 dated 28.01.2019 to Petitioner No.32.
33 B32 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 11(1)/2018-19/387 dated 10.12.2018 to Petitioner No.33.
34 B33 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 11(1)/2018-19/334 dated 22.11.2018 to Petitioner No.34.
35 B34 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 92(5)/2018-19/136 dated 18.01.2019 to Petitioner No.35.
36 B35 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 11(1)/2018-19/338 dated 22.11.2018 to Petitioner No.36.
- 14 -
37 B36 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(5)/ 5229 /2018-19 dated 13.02.2019 to Petitioner No.37.
to the Petitioners considering inter alia the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 16.12.2019 in W.A. No.1441/2019 produced at Annexure-J.
b) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the demand notes issued to all the Petitioners, only insofar as it relates to 1.16% contribution that was collected from them by issuing the following demand notes:-
Sl. Annexure Demand Letter No. and Issued by No. No. Date Respondent No. 1 B KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(1)/ 5 /2018-19 dated 29.09.2018 to Petitioner No.1.2 B1 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(1)/ 5
/2018-19 dated 29.09.2018 to Petitioner No.2.3 B2 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(1)/ 5
/2018-19 dated 27.11.2018 to Petitioner No.3.4 B3 KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 5
92(1)/80/2018-19 dated 27.10.2018 to Petitioner No.4.5 B4 KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 5
92(3)/65/2018-19 dated
14.12.2018 to Petitioner No.5.
6 B5 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(1)/ 5- 15 -
43 /2018-19 dated 03.12.2018 to Petitioner No.6.
7 B6 KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 592(5)/214/2018-19 dated 01.02.2019 to Petitioner No.7.
8 B7 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(1)/ 5 61 /2018-19 dated 14.12.2018 to Petitioner No.8.
9 B8 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(3)/ 5 68 /2018-19 dated 14.12.2018 to Petitioner No.9.
10 B9 KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 592(5)/203/2018-19 dated 01.02.2019 to Petitioner No.10.
11 B10 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/313 dated 07.11.2018 to Petitioner No.11.
12 B11 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/348 dated 01.12.2018 to Petitioner No.12.
13 B12 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 592(5)/2018-19/184 dated 01.02.2019 to Petitioner No.13.
14 B13 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(5)/ 5 228 /2018-19 dated 13.02.2019 to Petitioner No.14.
15 B14 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 592(5)/2018-19/171 dated 28.01.2019 to Petitioner No.15.
- 16 -
16 B15 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/435 dated 28.12.2018 to Petitioner No.16.
17 B16 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/161 dated 28.01.2019 to Petitioner No.17.
18 B17 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(5)/ 5 236 /2018-19 dated 13.02.2019 to Petitioner No.18.
19 B18 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/220 dated 13.02.2019 to Petitioner No.19.
20 B19 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/322 dated 09.11.2018 to Petitioner No.20.
21 B20 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-11(1)/ 5 380 /2018-19 dated 10.12.2018 to Petitioner No.21.
22 B21 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/354 dated 01.12.2018 to Petitioner No.22.
23 B22 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-11(1)/ 5 368 /2018-19 dated 05.12.2018 to Petitioner No.23.
24 B23 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 592(5)/2018-19/179 dated 01.02.2019 to Petitioner No.24.
25 B24 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 511(1)/2018-19/349 dated 22.11.2018 to Petitioner No.25.
26 B25 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5- 17 -
11(1)/2018-19/350 dated 01.12.2018 to Petitioner No.26.
27 B26 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 92(5)/2018-19/178 dated 01.02.2019 to Petitioner No.27.
28 B27 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 92(5)/2018-19/160 dated 28.01.2019 to Petitioner No.28.
29 B28 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 92(5)/2018-19/135 dated 18.01.2019 to Petitioner No.29.
30 B29 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 11(1)/2018-19/334 dated 22.11.2018 to Petitioner No.30.
31 B30 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 11(1)/2018-19/423 dated 28.12.2018 to Petitioner No.31.
32 B31 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 92(5)/2018-19/169 dated 28.01.2019 to Petitioner No.32.
33 B32 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 11(1)/2018-19/387 dated 10.12.2018 to Petitioner No.33.
34 B33 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 11(1)/2018-19/334 dated 22.11.2018 to Petitioner No.34.
35 B34 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 92(5)/2018-19/136 dated 18.01.2019 to Petitioner No.35.
36 B35 BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 5 11(1)/2018-19/338
- 18 -
dated 22.11.2018 to Petitioner No.36.
37 B36 KN/RO/BMS/SEC-92(5)/ 5229 /2018-19 dated 13.02.2019 to Petitioner No.37.
and consequently issue a direction to the Respondent PF Authorities to refund the 1.16% contribution along with interest considering inter alia the decision taken by the Respondent PF Authorities themselves vide Annexure-G with a further direction to the Respondent No.1 to contribute 1.16% contribution as per Para 3 (2) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.
c) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the action of the Respondent PF Authorities in fixation of revised pension as can be seen in documents vide Annexure C, C1, C2 to C36 only insofar as it relates to non consideration of the arrears of salary, pay scale revision, promotional arrears, D.A., etc., for the purpose of determination of pensionable salary and calculation of pension and consequently issue a writ directing the Respondent PF Authorities to revise the pension taking into consideration the arrears of salary, pay scale revision, promotional arrears, D.A., etc."
2. Heard Sri. Abhinav Ramanand .A, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Nandita Haldipur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7, Smt. K.S. Anasuyadevi, learned
- 19 -
Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri. B. Sudhakar, learned counsel for respondent No.8 and Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.9
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in R.C. Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809 [R.C. Gupta] vide order dated 04.10.2016, the respondents are not granting the legitimate entitlements of pension to the petitioners on higher salary.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Apex Court in the case of the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar .B and Ors. Etc., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1521 [Sunil Kumar] has issued certain directions on the basis of which, the pension amount has to be recalculated and the present
- 20 -
petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court.
5. The Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's case stated supra has issued certain directions, which reads as under:
"44. We accordingly hold and direct:
(i) The provisions contained in the notification no.
G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent subparagraphs.
(ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed.
(iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1st
- 21 -
September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.
(iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1st September 2014 did not provide for any cut off date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.
There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cutoff date by the
- 22 -
authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with.
(v) The employees who had retired prior to 1st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.
(vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014.
(vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000/ per month as an additional contribution under the amended
- 23 -
scheme is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees' contribution shall be as stop gap measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made.
(viii) We do not find any flaw in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary.
(ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (preamendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the
- 24 -
directives contained in the said judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph.
(x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos.619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that prayer in the petition at (b) is covered as per the directions of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's case, whereas, prayer No.(a) and (c) are not covered.
7. In prayer Nos.(a) and (c), the petitioners have has sought direction to the respondents to take into consideration, the arrears of salary including D.A. etc., for the purpose of determination of pensionable salary and calculation of pension. Prayer No.(a) has sought a direction to the respondents to pay interest on the arrears of pension from the date of retirement till the date of payment, the entitlement of interest and prayer No.(c) is nothing but recalculation of pensionable amount and the same is
- 25 -
squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra, wherein at paragraph No.36 it is held as under:
"36. The other aspect of the controversy involves changing the method of computation of the pensionable salary. We have given the points and counter points articulated by the contesting parties pertaining to this feature of the controversy earlier in this judgment. In our opinion, this change of methodology comes within the power of the Central Government to modify a scheme under Section 7 of the 1952 Act read with item 10 of the Schedule III to the Act as also paragraph 32 of the scheme. This alteration of computation is ancillary to determination of scale of pension alongwith pensionary benefits and paragraph 32 of the pension scheme specifically authorises the Central Government to alter the rate of contribution payable under the Scheme or the scale of any benefit admissible under the scheme. There is a reasonable basis for effecting change in the computation methodology for determining pensionable salary and we do not find any illegality or unconstitutionality in effecting this amendment."
8. The Apex Court has held in the said para that a change of methodology comes within the power of the
- 26 -
Central Government to modify a Scheme under Section 7 of 1952 Act read with item No.10 of Schedule III of the Act as also para No.32 of the Pension Scheme.
9. In light of the same, it would be appropriate, if this Court directs the petitioner/s to give representation/s to the pension authorities to recalculate the pension in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's case stated supra.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner/s to submit representation/s to the respondent-authorities and if such representation is/are made, respondent-authorities to consider the same, in light of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra, in accordance with law.
SD/-
JUDGE MBM