JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioners in these cases impugn certain portions of a Circular issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), New Delhi, wherein, it has been mandated that, for obtaining the benefit of higher rate of pension, employees ought to have exercised an option under paragraph 11(4) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (‘Pension Scheme’ for short).

2. Sri. R. Sanjith - learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that Ext.P1 Circular is in blatant violation and derogation of the specific directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 44 of Ext.P4 judgment; and hence that it is liable to be set aside. He, however, conceded that his clients’ contentions are confined only to that portion of the Circular which mandates the afore option and no other.

3. Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal - learned Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organization (‘EPFO’) submitted that, even a glance through the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly that contained in paragraph 44(iii) of Ext.P4 judgment, would render it ineluctable that only those employees who had exercised the option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of th