The entitlement of employees to pension contributions based on actual salary, exceeding the prescribed wage ceiling, as governed by the principles laid down in EPFO v. Sunil Kumar.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of May, 2026 The writ petition is preferred seeking the following reliefs:

i to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get pension on the basis of pensionable salary reckoned in accordance with his actual salary from the date of his joining the Pension Scheme under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952;

ii to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 4 to accept employers from the petitioner to his respective Employees Pension Fund with the arrears of contribution payable by him, based on his actual salary ie. Basic + DA, ignoring the ceiling prescribed in Paragraph 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme as it existed before the amendment with effect from 1-9-2014, and pay him enhanced pension with arrears thereon;

iii to declare that the petitioner is similarly situated as the petitioners in Ext. P1 judgment and is entitled to the same reliefs as allowed therein;

iv to declare that the amendment brought in with effect from 1-9-014 omitting the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme without providing sufficient safeguards of time and opportunity to those employees who have not exercised the right of option by then, is illegal and unsustainable;

v to declare that the amendment brought in by inserting paragraph 11 (4) to the Employees Pension Scheme with effect from 1-9-2014 classifying the employee as "the existing members as on 1st day of September, 2014, who at the option of the employer and employee, had been contributing on salary exceeding Six thousand and five hundred rupees per month" for exercise of fresh option to continue to contribute on salary exceeding Fifteen thousand per month is unreasonable, colourable exercise of power, illegal, discriminatory and unsustainable;

vi to issue any other writ, declaration, order or direction appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition is covered by the judgment in The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Another Etc. v. Sunil Kumar B &

Others Etc [2022 (7) KHC 12].

2. Heard, Sri.S.Prasanth, the learned Standing Counsel, appeared for the 4^th respondent.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the prayers sought in the writ petition in the light of the said judgment within a period of four months.