Pension calculations for retired employees must include Dearness Allowance and Pay Revision benefits per the Employees Pension Scheme, ensuring compliance with established judgments and circulars.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are retired employees of the 4^th respondent. It is stated that all of them retired after 01.09.2014. They claimed the benefit of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 04.11.2022 in EPFO and Another Vs. Sunil Kumar B. and Others [2022 (7) KHC 12 (SC)].

2. The petitioners complained that the Dearness Allowance and the Pay Revision benefits were overlooked while computing the pensionary benefits lawfully due to them. Accordingly, they seek a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to compute and consequently disburse the pensionary benefits based on the actual pay drawn by them, including Dearness Allowance and Pay Revision benefits.

3. The petitioners also rely on Ext.P6 judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.15353 of 2024 dated 10^th December 2024, and also Ext.P7 Circular issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) dated 18.01.2025.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 , in particular, paragraph 16A, which guarantees pensionary benefits and stipulates that none of the pensionary benefits under the Scheme shall be denied to any member or beneficiary for want of compliance of the requirements by the employer under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 provided, however, that the employer shall not be absolved of his liabilities under the Scheme.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the EPFO, based on the counter filed, submits that since the amounts are paid in bulk, unless further details are obtained, the calculation of pensionable salary of the petitioners based on the pay revision arrears cannot be made. It is further submitted that unless a month-wise bifurcation of the arrears in respect of each of the petitioners is given by the employer, the EPFO will not be in a position to calculate the pensionable salary of the petitioners.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent employer submits that as and when they receive any notice from EPFO, the details will be provided. This is recorded.

7. It is also worthwhile to notice that a similar contention was raised by the EPFO in WP(C) No.11652 of 2025.

8. Given the above, it is declared that the pensionable salary of the petitioners is to be calculated based on the average monthly pay drawn by the petitioners, inclusive of the arrears of DA/pay revision benefits, received by the petitioners, during the contributory period of service in the span of 60 months preceding the date of exit from the pension fund.

9. The orders impugned in the writ petition are quashed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to compute the pensionable salary of the petitioners based on the actual pay drawn by the petitioner, including DA/pay revision benefits and pass appropriate orders granting the same and pass appropriate revised pension payment orders along with the consequential benefits within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10. It will be open to the EPFO to seek further details from the 4th respondent employer, if they so desire, which shall be duly provided by the employer.

The writ petition is allowed as above.