IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 14968 of 2025 Gobinda Prasad Bera Vs Union of India & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indranath Mitra.

For the E.P.F. Authority : Mr. Shiv Chandra Prasad.

For the Respondent Nos. : Mr. Dhiman Kumar Sengupta, 5, 6 and 8 Mr. Farhin Mustaque.

Judgment reserved on : 19.09.2025/07.11.0225 Judgment delivered on : 14.11.2025 Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondent/P.F. Authorities not to give effect to its order dated

18.04.2024.

2. The petitioner’s case is that the Executive Officer, Tamluk, Ghatal Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TGCC Bank Ltd.) issued an appointment letter bearing Memo No. G/4078/291(II)

dated 06.04.1983 in favour of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Grade-IV staff.

3. The petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2016, on attaining the age of superannuation.

4. During the tenure of his service, the petitioner was a member of Employees Pension Scheme’ 1995, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization and Pension Payment Order (in short PPO) was issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has been getting pension to the tune of Rs.2169/- per month.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that the issue of applicability of paragraph

11(4) which came into force with effect from 01.09.2014 came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in EPFO & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors., (2023) 12 SCC 701. After considering all aspects, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held and directed under paragraph 44 (iv) that 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. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that their right to exercise option before 1^st September, 2014 stands crystallized in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta and Others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others, (2018) 14 SCC 809, wherein no cut off date was given for exercising option.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that within the time frame fixed/provided by the EPFO, the petitioner uploaded joint option declaration on the portal of the EPFO on 18.03.2023, which was duly acknowledged by the EPFO authority.

7. The petitioner further states that since joint option form has been submitted by the petitioner, in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated November 4, 2022, the petitioner expected that he will get pension on the basis of last pay drawn, but he has not received higher pension as per his entitlement. Hence, the writ application.

8. In course of hearing the respondent/EPF Authority has filed a report in the form of affidavit and an exception to the report has also been filed.

9. The respondent has relied upon paragraph 44 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. (Supra) and has stated that in the instant case, that the member has indicated in his application that he had applied for the joint option under the proviso to Para 11(3) on 16.11.1995, but he has attached no proof of the same in his application. No record of such an application is available with the Regional Office, EPFO, Kolkata. Further, from perusal of the records it is clear that the contribution to the Pension Fund (EPS 1995) in respect of the member has always been on the statutory ceiling and not on actual wages.

10. It is thus submitted that as such the petitioner herein is not eligible for revised pension, as he did not exercise his option prior to his retirement. The petitioner thus cannot get the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr.

vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. (Supra).

11.