Employees who had exercised option under proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme and continued to be in service as on 1st September 2014, were to be covered by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the Pension Scheme.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral):

1. The present matters have been received on transfer and marked to this Court.

2. The present writ petitions have been filed with prayer for quashing the order dated 13.08.2012 passed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, whereby it was decided not to settle the pension claims of the employees of Airports Authority of India (AAI), on the basis of their actual salary drawn and by restricting at the pensionable salary limit of Rs.6,500/- per month.

3. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No. 6 was set up on 01.04.1995 pursuant to promulgation of Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 on merger of International Airports Authority of India (IAAI) and National Airports Authority of India (NAAI). Thus, all the existing employees of lAAI and NAAI were absorbed in and stood transferred to Airports Authority of India w.e.f 01.04.1995.

4. It is submitted that vide letter dated 22.08.2007, respondent No.4 came to a conclusion that respondent No.6 establishment was covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act) w.e.f. 01.04.1995. Thus respondent No. 6, Airport Authority of India (AAI) vide its letter dated 03.10.2007, specified that the pension would be operated through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and stipulated that as required under the Pension Scheme, 1995, the employees had to exercise their option out of the two options available under Para 11 (3) of the Scheme on or before 22.10.2007 for onward submission to Respondent No.5. The two options were either for opting pension on full salary i.e. the salary on which Provident Fund (PF) was deducted or for opting for pension on the ceiling provided on ceiling applicable w.e.f. 01.06.2001 i.e. Rs.6,500/-.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that majority of employees/members of the petitioner exercised option `A' in favour of transfer of 8.33% of their actual salary to the Pension Fund maintained with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (North). Thus, respondent No.6 transferred 8.33% of the total monthly salary of the employees with respondent No.5, which contribution was duly accepted by said respondent from October, 2007 onwards. It is submitted that vide its letter dated 05.05.2008, the AAI had given a final opportunity to the employees to exercise their option and clearly specified that in the absence of any option, the recovery of pension contribution would be made as per ceiling applicable under the Pension Scheme.

6. By way of present writ petition, it has been submitted that the petitioners had made representation dated 28.08.2012 to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner/respondent No. 3 seeking intervention in the matter with respect to option having already been opted by the petitioners herein. However, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 issued impugned order dated 13.08.2012 taking wholly erroneous stand that the employees never applied to allow to contribute on more than the statutory limit of pay, as provident fund. Thus, the present writ petition had been filed with prayer for quashing the order dated 13.08.2012 passed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, whereby it has been decided not to settle the pension claims of the employees of the AAI.

7. By way of present petitions, employees of the AAI submit that their claims may be settled on the basis of their pensionable salary to be calculated at the actual amount drawn by them month by month during the tenure of their employment on which an amount representing 8.33% share of the employee's share was submitted to the pension fund.

8. Today, learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that the issue as raised in the present writ petitions would be covered by the judgment dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of The Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Anr. Etc. vs. Sunil Kumar B. and Ors. etc. and connected matters arising out of Special