SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1274

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Bhansali, J.
Shiv Kumar Jain – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12010/2020 Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12046/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12260/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12282/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12304/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12365/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12366/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12569/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12650/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12651/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12710/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12711/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12834/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12876/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13114/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13289/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13299/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13622/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 740/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 742/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 747/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 776/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 805/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 806/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 808/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 901/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 903/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1075/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1076/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1077/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1080/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1084/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1825/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1830/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7718/2022, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3437/2021, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12777/2020, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13284/2020
Decided On : 02-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr. B.P. Mathur, Advocate., for the Petitioner
Mr. Y.P. Khileree, Advocate., for the Respondent

The court's decision was based on the legal provisions and guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employee Provident Fund Organization & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors.: 2022 SCC Online SC 1521.

Headnote:

Pension Scheme - Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 - Notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 - R.C. Gupta & Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Ors.: 2018 (14) SCC 809 - Employee Provident Fund Organization & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors.: 2022 SCC Online SC 1521

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought direction to the respondents to accord them benefits of pension/family pension under the Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995, citing relevant judgments.

Finding of the Court:

The court disposed of the writ petitions in light of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employee Provident Fund Organization & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors.: 2022 SCC Online SC 1521.

Issues: The issues raised by the petitioners were concluded by the Larger Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the exhaustive guidelines provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employee Provident Fund Organization & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors.: 2022 SCC Online SC 1521.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of in light of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and both parties were directed to act in accordance with the Supreme Court's directions.

JUDGMENT

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the respondents to accord them benefits of pension/family pension, pursuant to the Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995.

2. The prayer in the petitions has been made that the respondents be directed to accord benefits to the petitioners in light of order in R.C. Gupta & Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Ors.: 2018 (14) SCC 809 and other judgments, which have followed the said judgment including a judgment of this Court.

3. The issues, which have been raised by the petitioners all stand concluded by Larger Bench Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employee Provident Fund Organization & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors.: 2022 SCC Online SC 1521.

4. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed as under:-

    "46. We accordingly hold and direct:-

    (i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent sub-paragraphs.

    (ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed.

    (iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1 st September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.

    (iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1 st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1 st September 2014 did not provide for any cutoff date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.

    There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

    Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with.

    (v) The employees who had retired prior to 1 st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

    (vi) The employees who have retired before 1 st September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014.

    (vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top