SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1328

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
R.C. Gupta & Ors. Etc. Etc. - Applicants
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Ors Etc. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S).10013-10014 Of 2016, (Arising Out Of Slp(C) Nos.33032-33033 Of 2015.
Decided on : 04-10-2016

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anip Sachthey, Mr. Adhitya Dhawan, Ms. Anjali Chauhan and Mr. Vinayak Shukla, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Pankaj Garg, Mr. Milind Garg, Mr. Ajay shankar Mani, Mr. Suvidutt M.S. and Mr. Vivek Gupta, Advocates.

The court emphasized that a beneficial Scheme should not be defeated by reference to a cut-off date, particularly when the employer had deposited 12% of the actual salary and not the ceiling limit.

Headnote:

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act - Pension Fund - 1952 Act, Section 6A - Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme

Fact of the Case:

The employees sought the benefit of depositing 8.33% of their actual salary in the Pension Fund, irrespective of the ceiling limit, which was initially denied by the Provident Fund Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decision of the Single Judge, upholding the view that there was a cut-off date for exercising the option under the Pension Scheme.

Issues: Interpretation of the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme, exercise of option under paragraph 26(6) of the Provident Fund Scheme, and the eligibility of employees to indicate their option under the proviso.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dates mentioned in the proviso were not cut-off dates to determine eligibility, and the exercise of option under paragraph 26(6) did not foreclose the exercise of a further option under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the order of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Gogoi, J.

Leave granted.

2. The challenge in these appeals is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversing the order of the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge had directed that the appellant-employees would be entitled to the benefit of deposit of 8.33% of their actual salary in the Pension Fund irrespective of the ceiling limit. The aforesaid percentage i.e. 8.33% is out of the total of 12%, which constitutes the employer's share under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1952 Act").

3. The facts lie within a short compass. Under the 1952 Act, 10% or 12% of the basic wages including dearness allowance etc. is required to be deposited in the Provident Fund Account of an employee being the employer's share. The Act as enacted in the year 1952 did not contain any provision for pension. Sub-section 6A with which we are concerned, was inserted by an amendment w.e.f. 16.11.1995 providing for the Employees' Pension Scheme to be framed for payment of pension to retiring employees. The corpus of the pension fund was to be inter alia constituted by deposit of 8.33% of the employer's contribution under Section 6 of the Act. The Pension Scheme which was framed to give effect to the provisions of Section 6A contains inter alia Clause 11, which deals with determination of pensionable salary. Under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme, the maximum pensionable salary was limited to Rs.5,000/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.6,500/- per month w.e.f. 08.10.2001. A couple of months after the Pension Scheme was framed w.e.f. 16.11.1995, a proviso was added to Clause 11(3) w.e.f. 16.03.1996 permitting an option to the employer and an employee for contribution on salary exceeding Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- (w.e.f. 08.10.2001) per month. 8.33% of such contribution on full salary was required to be remitted to the Pension Fund.

4. The appellant-employees on the eve of their retirement i.e. sometime in the year 2005 took the plea that the proviso brought in by the amendment of 1996 was not within their knowledge and, therefore, they may be given the benefit thereof, particularly, when the employer's contribution under the Act has been on actual salary and not on the basis of ceiling limit of either Rs.5,000/- or 6,500/- per month, as the case may be. This plea was negatived by the Provident Fund Authority on the ground that the proviso visualized a cut-off date for exercise of option, namely, the date of commencement of Scheme or from the date the salary exceeded the ceiling amount of Rs.5,000/- or 6,500/- per month, as may be. As the request of the appellant-employees was subsequent to either of the said dates, the same cannot be acceded to.

5. Aggrieved the appellant-employees moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge decided the Writ petition in favour of the appellant-employees making it clear that the decision would not serve as a precedent for the future. The Division Bench reversed the said decision upholding the view of the Provident Fund Authority that under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme there was a cut-off date.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have read and considered the orders of the High Court, the provisions of the Act, the Provident Fund Scheme as well as the relevant provisions of the Pension Scheme.

7. Clause 11 (3) of the Pension Scheme is in the following terms :

11. Determination of Pensionable Salary.

xxx xxx xxx

(3) The maximum pensionable salary shall be limited to 1[rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500/-] per month.

[Provided that if at the option of the 1 Sub-section by G.S.R.774(E), dated 8th October, 2001 (w.e.f. 1-6-2001) 2 Sub-section by G.S.R. 134, dated 28th February, 1996 (w.e.f. 16-3-1996) employer and employee, contribution paid on salary exceeding [rupees six thousand and five hundred/R










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top