The judgment reinforced that directions in earlier court decisions must be followed and allowed for the reconsideration of pension entitlements based on new legal interpretations.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners, who are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.13952 of 2017, have filed this Contempt Case, invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment dated 25.02.2019 in that writ petition, which was one rendered following the judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C)No.13120 of

2015 and connected matters.

2. The SLP filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation against the judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.13120 of 2015 and connected cases were dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 01.04.2019 in SLP (C) - Diary No.9610 of 2019. That order was recalled and the Apex Court rendered a detailed judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.8143 of 2022 and 8144 of 2022 and connected matters- Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. /b>. [2022 (7) KHC 12 : AIR 2022 SC 5634] . In that judgment, the Apex Court held that the provisions contained in Notification No.GSR 609(E) dated 22.08.2014 is legal and valid. The directions contained in paragraph 44 of the said judgment of the Apex Court dated 04.11.2022 read as follows:

“44. 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 22nd 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 1st 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 1st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case ofR.C. Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others [(2018) 14 SCC 809]. The scheme as it stood before 1st September 2014 did not provide for any cut-off 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 1st 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 wh