Employees who retired prior to the 2014 amendment of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 without exercising an option for higher pension contribution under the then-existing Para 11(3) are not entitled to claim higher pension benefits post-retirement.

Order On Board

1. Challenge in this petition is to the decision of respondent No.2 intimated to petitioner vide letter dated 09.02.2026 rejecting the application submitted by petitioner on 21.01.2025 for grant of higher pension.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner stood retired from the post of Chief Engineer from the Chhattisgarh Pollution Control Board, Raipur C.G. in the year 2013 after serving respondent No.1 for a period of 34 years. Petitioner was member of pension scheme known as the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (In short ‘the Scheme, 1995’). The Scheme, 1995 came to be amended vide notification dated 22.08.2014 and made it effective from 01.09.2014. Petitioner’s claim for grant of higher pension based on the amendment brought in the Scheme, 1995 in particular Para-11 w.e.f. 01.09.2014 came to be rejected, which made petitioner to file this writ petition seeking following relief (s) :-

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner Higher Pension Grievance From the Respondent No.2 and 3 department.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ of Certiorari by Quashing the impugned order 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 in the interest of Justice.

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to 3 grant the higher pension of the petitioner from the period of February 2022 with adequate penal interest.

10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner during his service carrier was a member of the Scheme, 1995. After retirement, petitioner was paid pension of Rs. 20,770/- on application submitted under Form-10D of the Scheme, 1995. Vide letter dated 25.02.2022, respondent No.2 has informed that till decision in case of the Employee Provident Fund Organization & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Others, provisional pension to be paid and ordered for amended pension. It is also mentioned in the letter that pension is being paid on old rate. In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Employee Provident Fund Organisation And Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors., reported in (2023) 12 SCC 701, it has been specifically held that persons, who is retired prior to 01.09.2014 and is making joint contribution, said employee/persons shall be entitled for the benefit of the amendment as brought in w.e.f. 01.09.2014. The action on the part of the respondents in not extending the benefit of amended provision under Para 11 (3) of the Scheme, 1995 is highly arbitrary and illegal. It is also submitted that petitioner and respondent No.1 moved a joint application under Para 11 (3) of the Scheme, 1995, before respondent No.2 on 21.02.2023 in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunil Kumar B (supra) and the regulations issued by the Head Office of respondent No.2 vide circular dated 29.12.2022, therefore, petitioner is entitled for benefit of amended Para -11 of the Scheme, 1995. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision in case of Sunil Kumar B (supra) and the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Lamman Sahu Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization in WPS No. 4132 of 2023 and other batch of writ petitions, decided on 02.03.2