The statutory limit for contribution under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 cannot be stretched, and the proviso of para 11(3) is only applicable when the contribution beyond the statutory limit is made in accordance with the rules.

1. In all the above stated writ petitions, similar questions are involved and accordingly, all the above stated writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ commanding the respondents to pay higher pensionable salary in terms of proviso to para 11 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.

3. Petitioners were employees of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited where the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 had been implemented. Petitioners made their contributions towards the aforesaid scheme and the aforesaid Corporation had deducted required amount from salary of the petitioners to make contributions in the above stated scheme. In course of time, petitioners started receiving salary much at Rs. 6500/- per month and the said corporation had been contributing the prescribed amount of salary exceeding Rs. 6500/- per month into pension fund but petitioners were denied their pension on higher salary. The then Managing Director of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited raised protest against the act of respondents writing vide letter no. 5210 dated 23.06.2009 and the Union of the employees of the aforesaid Corporation also made protest against the act of the respondents but of no avail and respondents refused to make payment on higher salary.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that admittedly, deduction had been made by the employer on higher salary of the petitioners and the aforesaid deduction were accepted by the respondents and therefore, they can not refuse to give pensionary benefit at the rate of higher deduction because the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 is a pensionary scheme and deduction on higher salary was never refused by the respondents. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Board of directors of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited took decision to make deduction on higher rate of salary and informed the respondents and similarly, association of employees of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited also gave consent of employees for deduction on their higher salary and therefore, according to para 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, the respondents are bound to give pensionary benefit at higher rate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 is a pensionary scheme for employees and therefore, the interpretation of the provision of the aforesaid scheme should be for the benefit of the workers. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited decision reported in (2009) 10 Supreme court cases 123 in which Apex Court of this country held that the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 is a social welfare legislation intended to protect the interest of weaker section of society i.e. the workers employed in factories and other establishments and, therefore, it is imperative for the courts to give a purposive interpretation to the provisions contained therein keeping in view the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in Articles 38 and 43 of the Constitution. Another decision cited is 2008(7) Supreme Court cases 111. In the above stated case, dispute was regarding date of birth of the employee whose date of birth had been entered in her service book as 31.12.1995 whereas in the record of provident fund commissioner, her date of birth had been entered as 24.09.1932 and Apex Court of this country held that date of birth entered into service book shall prevail over date of birth recorded in the record of provident fund commissioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also cited decision reported in 2009(9) Supreme court cases 61 in which it has been held by the Apex Court of this country that Employees’ State Insurance Act is a beneficial legislation and is a social security legislation and the canons of interpreting a social legislation ar