Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.38 seconds)
Lalman Sahu vs Employees Provident Fund Organization on 2 March, 2026 cites

R.C. Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc. vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 4 October, 2016

25. The issue was again agitated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sunil Kumar B. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the finding with regard to fact that there was no cut off date to be contemplated prior to 2014 amendment and limiting the entitlement of enhanced pension coverage those employees only who had already exercised an option under Clause 11(3) of the unamended Scheme 30 would be contrary to the ratio of the case of R.C. Gupta (supra) and thereafter, they have categorized the employees who can be given the benefits of higher pension from paragraph 50.1 to 50.11.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 206 - Full Document

Federal Bank Ltd vs Sagar Thomas & Ors on 26 September, 2003

30. So far as judgment of Otis (supra) is concerned, in that case the EPF Scheme 1995 was challenged which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and held that the EPF Act is social welfare legislation and if legislation is not patently arbitrary, the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not monitor implementation of such policy unless the same is discriminatory and arbitrary. Since the scheme is for the welfare of the employees, the same cannot be held to be violative of Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 487 - B Kumar - Full Document

Pepsu Road Transport Corp., Patiala vs Mangal Singh & Ors on 12 May, 2011

31. Further reliance of the respondents in case of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation (supra), wherein the issue raised in that case is as per Regulation 4, the condition for exercise of the option on or before 15.12.1992 by an employee in order to avail the pensionary benefit 35 under the scheme. Subsequently, the corporation has also extended this period by 3 months, still the employees had not exercised any option for availing the benefits under the pension scheme and they were granted all the benefits under the CPF and the Gratuity without any objection or protest. However, on 01.06.2002, after merely 10 years, from the retirements, the respondent filed a suit for declaration of entitlement to pension and other benefits in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhatinda. This is not the situation in the present case as the petitioners immediately after judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta and circular issued by the department itself submitted option. This case is also distinguishable on the facts also as in the case in hand, no cutoff date has been prescribed under the original scheme.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 94 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Krishena Kumar And Anr. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 July, 1990

29. Further reliance of the respondents in case of Krishena Kumar (supra). 34 The judgment is distinguishable as in the pension scheme framed by the Railways authorities there is a Railways Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The said scheme was before 1957 and in the year 1957, the said scheme was replaced by pension scheme in the year 1957 and employees who entered Railway service on or after 1957 were automatically covered by the Railway Pension Scheme.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 392 - K N Saikia - Full Document

Mafatlal Group Staff Association And ... vs Regional Commissioner, Provident Fund ... on 29 March, 1994

(e) It has been further contended by the EPFO that after attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years of age the initial pension was fixed. After addition of weightage benefit, monthly pension has been increased and arrears of weightage benefit have also been released from date of commencement of pension. For instance, in case of petitioner-Lalman Sahu monthly pension on higher wages was fixed as Rs. 8270/- and difference of arrears Rs. 3,98,645/- for the period from 14.11.2012 to 30.04.2018 were released. The pension of the petitioner was originally enhanced to higher wages not on the basis of Court order, but as per the application made by the Pensioner stating himself to be eligible for pension on actual salary vide his declaration/joint option dated 01.12.2017 (received on 06.12.2017). But in view of the subsequent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly para 50(vii) of the judgment employees whoever retired prior to 01.09.2014 without exercising option under para 11(3) of pre-amended scheme shall not be 16 entitled to higher pension.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Narendra Singh on 13 December, 2007

28. The judgment in case of Narendra Singh (supra) is not applicable in the present facts of the case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of R.C. Gupta (supra) has held that there is no time period for submission of option form in the original scheme, therefore, it cannot be allowed to insert by the amendment in the Scheme. The judgment of R.C. Gupta has been affirmed in subsequent judgment of Sunil Kumar B. as such it cannot be held that by mistake they have granted the benefits. Therefore, the submission of the respondents that they can rectify the mistake deserves to be rejected as the grant of higher pension is in conformity with the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 144 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Inderjit Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 January, 2020

13. To substantiate their submission they would refer to judgment of R.C. Gupta (supra), Sunil Kumar B. (supra), Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh in case of Inderjit Singh Kaknian and Others Vs. Union of India and Others (para 25) and Neelima Srivastava vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others decided on 17.08.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 4840 of 2021.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - G S Sandhawalia - Full Document
1