ORDER

No man out of his own private reason ought to be wiser than the law” - ‘None Wiser Than the Law’ Former CJI Justice Shri MN Venkatachaliah's Podcast.

By way of the present OA, filed under Section Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs :

Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent no. 2 to pay the petitioner his pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 with effect from the date the Petitioner attained the age of 58 years And/or Such other order/direction as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The brief facts of the case as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant joined the office of the respondent No. 3 on 28.11.1972 and continued to work there till 31 March 2004, when he took Voluntary retirement from service (VRS). In the year, 1972, the applicant became a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (EFPS, contributions towards it from the year, 1972 to the year, till the time the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS, 1995) was in existence till as late as 2000 when the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the EPS 1995 by way of its O.A. No. 954/2019 No man out of his own private reason ought to be ‘None Wiser Than the Law’-

Venkatachaliah's By way of the present OA, filed under Section – 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent no. 2 to pay the petitioner his pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 with effect from the date the Petitioner attained the age of 58 years y be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The brief facts of the case as stated by the learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant joined the office of the respondent No. 3 on 28.11.1972 and continued e till 31 March 2004, when he took Voluntary retirement from service (VRS). In the year, 1972, the applicant became a member of the Employees Family 1971) and made contributions towards it from the year, 1972 to the year, till the time the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS, 1995) was in existence till as late as 2000 when the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the EPS 1995 by way of its judgment in Ors (2003)12 SCC 68.

3. Learned counsel for th a matter of record that the applicant made contributions towards EFPS, 1971 for 23 years and highlighted Annex P3 of OA and further submitted that thereafter, there were 3 deductions made by Respondent No.3 under EPS, 1995 and no further deductions were made by the employer, i.e., the respondent No.3.

4. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand and Ors Vs Harihar Yadav and Anr (2014)2 SCC 114, learned counsel for the applicant argued that i discharge its duty being a model employer of the welfare state. Further, he invited the attention of this Bench to the definition of "Existing Member" as defined in para 2(1)(vi) EPS, 1995 and submitted that it me employee who is a member of the EFPS, 1971 and as per para 3(4) of EPS, 1995 the net assets of the EFPS, 1971 shall vest in and stand transferred to Employee's Pension Fund. He adds that as per para 12 of the EPS, 1995 a member shall be ent 3 judgment in Otis Elevator Employees Union Vs UOI & (2003)12 SCC 68. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is a matter of record that the applicant made contributions towards EFPS, 1971 for 23 years and highlighted Annex P3 of OA and further submitted that thereafter, there were 3 deductions made by Respondent No.3 under EPS, 1995 and no further deductions were made by the employer, i.e., the respondent No.3. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court State of Jharkhand and Ors Vs Harihar Yadav and (2014)2 SCC 114, learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the instant case, the employer failed to discharge its dut