Higher pension cannot be denied based on bulk payments if actual contributions were made according to statutory requirements.

JUDGMENT

Since the parties are the same and common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, unless otherwise expressly indicated, the exhibits and the status of the parties referred to in this judgment will be as obtaining in W.P.(C) No.40261 of 2024.

2. The petitioners retired from the service of the 4^th respondent, a Central Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, on various dates after 01.09.2014. W.P.(C) No.40261 of 2024 is filed for the following reliefs:

“i] Call for the records leading to issue Ext. P15 and similar orders issued to other petitioners and quash the same by issuing a writ of certioriari or any other appropriate writ order or direction.

ii] declare that all the petitioners are entitled to get higher pension in the light of para 44(ix) of Ext.P9 Judgment with the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court in the light of the Judgment in Sunil Kumar case.

iii] declare that since collecting the contribution for the period April, 2004 to October 2006 amounting to Rs.40,03,150/- with interest of Rs.1,64,137/- on 16.11.2006 and October 2007 to February 2008 amounting to Rs.13,00,684/- with interest of Rs.11,879/- on 26.03.2008, the EPFO cannot turn round and deny pension under para 44(iv) & (v) of the Sunil Kumar Judgment stating that petitioners not exercised option while in service, which has no application on the facts of the case.

iv] Declare that petitioners are entitled to get 12% interest in terms of para 17A of the Pension Scheme, 1995.”

3. According to the petitioners, while in service, they made contributions to the provident fund on the basis of the actual salary drawn by them. The 4^th respondent employer also contributed on the basis of actual salary. When the Employees' Provident Fund Pension Scheme, 1995 was introduced with effect from 16.11.1995, all of them enrolled in the Pension Scheme. However, they were permitted to contribute to the Pension Scheme limiting their salary as Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- on the ground that an artificial cut off date was made by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation with effect from 01.12.2004. The petitioners challenged the cut off date by filing W.P.(C) Nos.30882 of 2014 and 2341 of 2017 along with others and this Court, by Ext. P1 judgment dated 20.11.2014 in W.P.(C) No.30882 of 2014, permitted the petitioners to contribute to the pension fund on the basis of actual salary. The contribution to the EPF scheme was 12% of their actual wages as employees contribution and equal amount of 12% by the 4^th respondent. Based on audit report objecting to the payment of EPF contribution without considering the statutory limit, the Government issued direction to the 4^th respondent to limit the employer share of EPF contribution to the statutory wage ceiling. The same was challenged by the employees and their association in O.P. No.19664 of 1998 wherein this Court, by an interim order permitted the employer to pay contribution on actual wages to the EPFO without considering the statutory limit. However, the said original petition was dismissed by judgment dated 02.09.2003 and the 4^th respondent decided to limit the employer share of EPF contribution to the statutory wage ceiling. Against the said judgment, a writ appeal was filed as W.A. No.1591 of 2003 wherein the Division Bench of this Court passed Ext.P10 interim order on 09.03.2004 permitting the employer to deposit the amount in excess of the statutory limit in a separate account in a Nationalised Bank and in case the employees succeed i