Retired employees must exercise necessary options under the EPF Scheme to claim pensions based on actual salary; failure to do so limits pension to statutory ceiling.

JUDGMENT :

This Court has heard Mr. Nirmal Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned Advocate for the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned Advocate for the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and the learned Advocate for the Union of India.

2. The petitioners are the retired employees of Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the respondents, especially the respondent Employees Provident Fund Organization for fixation of their pension on higher pensionable salary in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Gupta & Ors. Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors., (2018) 14 SCC 809 [(Civil Appeal No. (s) 10013-10014 of 2016)].

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they duly appointed as Assistant Accountants on the sanctioned and vacant post of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Headquarter), Patna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’). Subsequently, on being found eligible, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Accountant and after serving so many years, they superannuated form the services of the Corporation. Upon their superannuation, the petitioners have been allowed admitted dues. However, despite the fact that the petitioners had been contributing excess amount to the Employees Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter referred to as ‘the EPFO’) since 1997 for getting higher pension and similarly the employer had also been depositing the equivalent subscription from time to time, the pension of the petitioners was fixed at Rs.2458/- on the basis salary of Rs.6500/- in a most arbitrary manner. The petitioners stated that at the time of superannuation, the basic pay of the petitioner was Rs.13,500/-along with Dearness allowances of Rs.5535/-. Meaning thereby, the petitioners were getting Rs.19,035/- at the time of superannuation in the Corporation, but the respondent EPFO ignoring this fact fixed the pensionable salary @ Rs.6500/- in a most arbitrary manner.

4. Mr. Nirmal Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that it is well settled principle of law and as has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the pension is fixed on the basis of last pay scale with D.A., which was being withdrawn by the employee at the time of superannuation. On 22.02.2008 itself, the Corporation has furnished Form No. 2 to the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund for payment of pension in terms of Circular of the Corporation stating therein that the Corporation has already taken a decision to allow the pension on higher wages. The aforesaid fact clearly suggests that the Corporation had never objected, if the petitioners shall be allowed pension on the full wages. The petitioners being retired employees of the Corporation, they have already submitted Form 10D-19 and 3AR through Corporation to EPFO. The matter has also been taken to the Managing Director of the Corporation, who after considering the request of the employees informed to the Provident Fund Commissioner vide letter dated 23.06.2009, as contained in Memo No.5210 that the contribution of the employee and the employer share are being deducted on higher wages, but despite the aforesaid fact the pension of the petitioners under the Scheme 1995 could not be fixed on the higher salary/wages of the petitioners.

5. In the aforesaid premise, the General Secretary of the Employees had also preferred C.W.J.C. No. 7822 of 2010 for extending the monthly pension to the employees of the Corporation on the basis of the proportionate contribution deducted from their salary even exceeding salary of Rs.6500/-. It was also prayed that the benefits of Employees Scheme, 1995 should extend up to the age of 60 years. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 10.02