Madhya Pradesh High Court
K.K. Dubey vs Commissioner on 6 May, 2026
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35525
1 WP-10873-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 10873 of 2022
K.K. DUBEY
Versus
COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Arjaria- Advocate for the respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging action of respondents in deduction of his pension.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondents had issued a letter to petitioner on 1.1.2019 and petitioner was asked to deposit Rs. 1,75,543/- for getting higher pension in accordance with judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of R.C. Gupta Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809 in case no. 33032-33033/2015. Accordingly, petitioner deposited the amount and was getting higher pension for some period of time. Later on, respondents had reduced the pension amount. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Signing time: 5/7/2026 6:14:06 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35525 2 WP-10873-2022 petitioner had fulfilled the conditions and had deposited amount therefore, respondents cannot go back on their decision and pay him reduce pension. Respondents may be directed to restore the pension to petitioner which was being paid to him.
3. Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that after passing of the judgment in case of R.C. Gupta (supra), another order was passed by Apex Court in case of Employees Provident Fund Organization and another Vs. Sunil Kumar B. and others reported in (2023) 12 SCC 701. In case of Sunil Kumar B. (supra), Apex Court in paras 44(v) and 44(vi) had fixed the cut off date of 1.9.2014 and all employees who had retired prior to 1.9.2014 and have not given any option shall not be granted benefit of enhanced pension. It is submitted that relying on the aforesaid judgment in case of Sunil Kumar B. (supra), pension of petitioner has been reduced. No error can be found in the order for reducing pension of petitioner.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Respondents had acted in accordance with the order passed by Apex Court in case of R.C.Gupta (supra) and granted benefit to petitioner. Later on, Apex Court had issued further order and clarification in case of Sunil Kumar B. (supra) in accordance with the said order petitioner is not found entitled and pension has been reduced.
6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, it is found that respondents had complied with the order passed by Apex Court, but Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Signing time: 5/7/2026 6:14:06 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35525 3 WP-10873-2022 however there is no justification of withholding the amount of Rs. 1,75,543/- which was deposited by the petitioner. Said amount is to be returned to petitioner along with interest @ of 8.25% within a period of 30 days. Respondents are also at liberty to adjust the amount of enhanced pension in the said amount.
7. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed off.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE AD/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR DUBEY Signing time: 5/7/2026 6:14:06 PM