Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) superannuation pension if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years;

(b) early pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years.

12 (2). In the case of a new entrant, the amount of monthly superannuation pension or early pension, as the case may be, shall be computed in accordance with the following factors, namely:­ Monthly member’s pension= Pensionable Salary x Pensionable Service Provided that the members’ monthly pension shall be determined on a pro­rata basis for the pensionable service up to the 1st day of September, 2014 at the maximum pensionable salary of six thousand and five hundred rupees per month and for the period thereafter at the maximum pensionable salary of fifteen thousand rupees per month.” 17 | P a g e

(iii) Employees who had retired prior to 1st September 2014 without exercising an option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Act scheme.

(iv) Employees who had retired prior to 1 st September 2014 after exercising of an option under the paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme.”

20. It was held by the Kerala High Court, following the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra), that paragraph 11 of the pension scheme did not stipulate a cut­off date at all. Any such 23 | P a g e stipulation, in the opinion of the High Court, would have the effect of defeating the purpose of a beneficial scheme. After the relevant date, that is 1st September 2014, on the question of capping the salary to Rs.15000/­ per month for continuing in the pension scheme, it was, inter­alia, held by the High Court:­ “33. As per the amendments, the maximum pensionable salary has been fixed at Rs.15,000/­ thereby disentitling the persons who have contributed on the basis of their actual salaries to any benefits on the basis of the excess contributions made by them. The said provision is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The employees, who have been making contributions on the basis of their actual salaries after submitting a joint option with their employers as required by the Pension Scheme, are denied the benefits of their contributions by the said amendments without any justification. Apart from the above, to cap the salary at Rs. 15,000/­ for quantifying pension is absolutely unrealistic. A monthly salary of Rs.15,000/­ works out only to about Rs.500/­ per day. It is common knowledge that, even a manual labourer is paid more than the said amounts as daily wages. Therefore, to limit the maximum salary at Rs.15,000/­ for pension would deprive most of the employees of a decent pension in their old age. Since the pension scheme is intended to provide succour to the retired employees, the said object would be defeated by capping the salary. The duty of the trustees of the Fund is to administer the same for the benefit of the employees ­ by wise investments 24 | P a g e and efficient management. They have no right to deny the pension legitimately due to them on the ground that the fund would get depleted. The demand of additional payment of 1.16% of their salaries exceeding Rs.15,000/­ is unsustainable for the reason that, Section 6A does not require the employees to make any additional contribution to constitute the Pension Fund. Nor does it empower the authorities to demand additional contribution. In the absence of any statutory backing, the said provision in the Pension Scheme is ultra vires. The amendment in so far as it stipulates the average monthly pay drawn over a span of 60 months preceding the date of exit as the pensionable service is also arbitrary for the reason that it deprives the employees of a substantial portion of the pension to which they would have been eligible had it not been for the amendment. The provision as it originally stood stipulated computation of pensionable salary on the basis of the monthly pay drawn over a period of 12 months prior to their exit. The reason for the amendments as disclosed by the counter affidavit filed is that payment of pension on the basis of the Scheme as it stood prior to the amendment would result in depletion of the Fund. Absolutely no material or data to support the above contention has been placed before us. On the contrary, placing reliance on a news report carried by “The Hindu” newspaper on 17.8.2014, it is contended by the petitioners that, a staggering amount of Rs.32,000 Crores of unclaimed amount is lying in various inoperative accounts across the country, as unclaimed pension as disclosed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner at an interactive 25 | P a g e  session with employees at Hyderabad. In the absence of any material to support the contention that the fund is likely to be depleted, we reject the said contention. Apart from the above, there is no provision in the Act that stipulates the pension payments to commensurate with the amounts actually remitted by an employee and his employer. It is also a fact that the administrators of the Fund invest the amounts and generate profit from such investments.”

(ii) employees who have not exercised their option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme, and continuing in service as on 1.9.2014;

(iii) employees who have retired prior to 1.9.2014 without exercising an option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme; (iv) employees who have retired prior to 1.9.2014 after exercising the option under paragraph 11(3) of 1995 Scheme. The rationale in so classifying the employees covered by the Pension Scheme on the basis of the above date is not forthcoming. The object sought to be achieved is stated to be prevention of depletion of the Pension Fund, which cannot be accepted as a justification to support the classification. Inasmuch as the statutory scheme is to make the Pension Fund ensure to the benefit of the homogeneous class of the totality of employees covered by the Provident Fund, a further classification of the said class by formulating a Scheme is ultra vires the power available to the Central Government under Sections 5 and 7 of the EPF Act. Therefore, it has to be held that, the impugned amendments are arbitrary, ultra vires the EPF Act and unsustainable. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The writ petitions are all allowed as follows:

Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with.

(v) The employees who had retired prior to 1 st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre­amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

48 | P a g e

(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.