Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
M.M. Joseph - Appellant
Versus
Union of India Rep. by Secretary, New Delhi - Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 7548, 11729, 13010, 20979 of 2020
Decided On : 28-05-2025
(A) Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Writ petition for declaration of entitlement to pension based on actual salary - Petitioners claimed pensionable salary reckoned with retrospective effect based on actual salary and excess contributions - Previous judgment reversed by Supreme Court in EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others [2022 SCC online SC 1521]. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Pension entitlements - The 4th petitioner was already receiving a higher pension from July 2021, which shall be protected until further decisions are made in related writ petitions. (Paras 4-6)
(C) Similar cases - Other writ petitions disposed of in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions, with claims to be considered within two months. (Paras 7)
JUDGMENT :
1. Writ Petition No. 7548 of 2020 is filed for a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to pension on the basis of pensionable salary reckoned in accordance with their actual salary from the dates of their joining the Pension Scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. This prayer was made based on their contention that the pension is to be reckoned with respect to the actual salary as pensionable salary with retrospective effect, and also accepting from the petitioners the excess amount of contribution they ought to have paid to the Pension Fund, as contribution calculating the same based on their actual salary.
2. The claim of the petitioner essentially was made based on Ext.P1 judgment passed by this Court in WP (C) No. 34284 of 2016 and connected cases.
3. It is submitted by both sides that the said judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B. and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1521.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as the 4th petitioner in writ petition No.13010 of 2020, he was already getting higher pension from July, 2021 onwards and therefore submitted that the pension he received be protected. It is also submits that the above payment was based on the interim orders passed in W.P. (C) No.8206 of 2024 and in W.P. (C) No.17342 of 2025.
5. In view of the above, the 4th petitioner will continue to receive the pension, he was receiving from July, 2021 as far as the other petitioners are concerned will be governed by the directions issued by the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above.
6. It is also made clear that till the entitlement of the petitioners are decided in W.P. (C) No.8206 of 2024 and in W.P. (C) No.17342 of 2025, the higher pension granted to the petitioner shall not be disturbed.
7. W.P. (C) Nos. 11729 of 2020 and 20979 of 2020 are also similar to this writ petition. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of holding that the parties will be governed by the directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph 44 of the judgment referred to above. The claims of the petitioners will be considered in terms of the above judgment, and orders passed, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Pension entitlements under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act must be based on actual salary, with retrospective effect, as clarified by the Supreme Court.
The entitlement to pension based on actual salary under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, must be processed by the authorities in accordance with the legal princi....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. judgment in determining the entitlements of pension benefits unde....
Pensionable salary must include all payments made during the last 60 months of service, including arrears and pay revision benefits.
The entitlement of employees to pension contributions based on actual salary, exceeding the prescribed wage ceiling, as governed by the principles laid down in EPFO v. Sunil Kumar.
Pensionable salary must include retrospective wage revisions and arrears, as established by judicial precedent.
The court mandated the computation of pensionable salary to include actual pay and benefits as per Supreme Court directives, ensuring compliance within a specified timeframe.
Pension calculations for retired employees must include Dearness Allowance and Pay Revision benefits per the Employees Pension Scheme, ensuring compliance with established judgments and circulars.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
