JUDGMENT :

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the communication dated 01.05.2019 and a further direction that the respondents calculate the monthly pension of the petitioners by adopting the correct method of calculation in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 and to pay to the petitioners the difference of monthly pension from September 2014 and continue to pay to the petitioners the arrears of the difference of monthly pension with interest at such rate as the Court may deem fit.

2. Facts in brief indicate that the petitioners are past and present employees of the GNFC, Bharuch. The petitioners are the members of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 ('EPS, 95' for short). The case of the petitioners is that all of them have rendered more than 25 years of service and are also members of the Employees Family Pension Scheme. The age of superannuation of the employees is 60 years whereas as per the scheme the exit is at the age of 58 years and therefore the petitioners are receiving the benefit of the EPS, 95 at the age of 58.

3. Mr A.K. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioners in the context of the prayers made in the petition would submit that the petitioners are receiving pension but the amount of monthly pension is less than what it should be if the amount is correctly calculated. Mr. Clerk would set out the relevant paras namely paras 9 to 12 of the Pension Scheme and submit and demonstrate the flaws in the calculation of pension of each of the petitioners. For example, Mr. Clerk would illustrate the wrong calculation in the case of one Mr. H.P. Soni and submit as under: Shri H.P. Soni reached the age of 58 years on 30.08.2017 and his pension is fixed at Rs. 2866/- by the respondent whereas according to the correct calculation, it should be Rs. 4373/- (Loss of 34.5%).

3.1 Mr Clerk would submit that the formula for calculating monthly pension as given in Para 12 of the Scheme is as under:

Monthly Member's Pension = Pensionable Salary x Pensionable Service 70

3.2 He would submit that the members are also entitled to the past service benefit for the service rendered prior to 16.11.1995, the date when the Pension Scheme came into force. Members are also entitled to the weightage of 2 years for rendering eligible service of 20 years or more. It is submitted by Mr Clerk that the respondents are calculating pension on the service rendered after September 2014 on the basis of average of last 60 months' salary. The contribution of the petitioners during the last 60 months is on the basis of the ceiling of Rs.6500/- per month for the service rendered prior to 1.09.2014 and the ceiling of Rs.15,000 after 01.09.2014, however, the respondents are calculating the pensionable salary on the basis of average of last 60 months salary but the respondents are not calculating the monthly pension on the basis of the said pensionable salary for the purpose of formula as per Para 12 of the Scheme. He would submit that for example in case of Shri H.P. Soni his service prior to 01.09.2014 is calculated in number of days i.e. 6856 and the same is multiplied by salary ceiling of Rs. 6500 and the product is divided by 365 multiplied by 70 resulting in pension of Rs.1744/- p.m. and the service after 01.09.2014 is calculated in days i.e. 1094 which is multiplied by average salary of last 60 months i.e. Rs. 11458 and the product is divided by 365 multiplied by 70 resulting in pension of Rs. 491 p.m. Adding 2 years of weightage service is calculated as 730 days multiplied by 6500 and the product is divided by 365 x70 resulting in Rs. 186/-. Thereafter Rs. 445 is added for past service. Therefore the respondents are calculating the monthly pension of Shri Soni as 1744 + 491 + 186 + 445 = 2866 only.

3.3 Mr. Clerk would submit that the above calculation is incorrect and as per para 12 of the Scheme, his total service in years must be multiplied by pensionable salary (average of l