SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 9850

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
g.ramar s/o.k.m.ganapathy – Appellant
Versus
the addl. central provident – Respondent
W.P.(MD) No.9408 of 2019



Advocates:
Mr.C.Jeganathan for Petitioner, Mr.A.John Xavier for R1 & R2, Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader for R3

The court mandates submission of a joint application for pension revision in accordance with Supreme Court guidelines, emphasizing compliance for entitlement to higher pension.

Headnote:(A) Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding pension revision - The petitioner seeks higher pension based on previous judgments, specifically W.P.

(C) No.13120 of 2015 and S.L.P.Nos.10013 to 10014 of 2016 - The Supreme Court's guidelines necessitate a joint application for pension revision. (Paras 1, 2, 6, 7)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court allows the petitioner to submit a joint application for pension revision, emphasizing compliance with the Supreme Court's directives. (Paras 4, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an order denying higher pension and sought direction for payment based on Supreme Court guidelines. The respondents indicated that a joint application was necessary for pension revision.

Findings of Court:
The court permits the petitioner to submit a joint application for pension revision, directing the respondents to act on it within a stipulated time frame.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could receive a higher pension based on the Supreme Court's guidelines and the necessity of a joint application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner must submit a joint application for pension revision as per the Supreme Court's guidelines, which must be acted upon by the respondents within a specified period.

Result: Writ petition disposed of.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued by the second respondent, in No.TN/MDU/RO/PPO-87993/2019, dated 14.03.2019 and to quash the same and consequently to direct the second respondent to pay higher pension to the petitioner in the light of the Judgment of the the High Court of Kerala made in W.P.(C) No.13120 of 2015 and the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.10013 to 10014 of 2016, within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, Mr.A.John Xavier, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the third respondent, brought to the notice of this Court that the very same issue has fallen for consideration before the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. reported in (2023) 12 SCC 701 and the Honourable Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines and in terms of the said guidelines, the pension payable to the petitioner is required to be revised.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submits that in case the petitioner submits a joint application along with the third respondent online before the respondents 1 & 2, the same would be considered and appropriate revision of pension would be made. He would further submit that it is only for want of appropriate joint application from the petitioner along with the third respondent, the revised pension payable to the petitioner could not be made in terms of the guidelines framed by the Honourable Apex Court, referred to above.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having noted the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the petitioner would submit necessary joint application along with the third respondent and other relevant documents before the respondents 1 & 2 within a period of four weeks from today.

5. In view of the same, this Court does not see any impediment for the disposal of the present writ petition.

6. The Honourable Apex Court, having considered the matter, laid down the guidelines at Paragraph No.50 of the order dated 04.11.2022, which read as under:

“50. We accordingly hold and direct:

50.1. The provisions contained in Notification No. GSR 609(E) dated 22-8-2014 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 subparagraphs.

50.2. Amendment to the Pension Scheme brought about by Notification No. GSR 609(E) dated 22-8-2014 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.

50.3. The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to Para 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme and continued to be in service as on 1-9-2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of Para 11(4) of the Pension Scheme.

50.4. The members of the Scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to Para 11(3) of the Pension Scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under Para 11(4) of the post amendment Scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1-9-2014 stands crystallised in the judgment of this Court in R.C. Gupta [ R.C. Gupta v. EPFO , (2018) 14 SCC 809 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 745] . The Scheme as it stood before 1-9-2014 did not provide for any cut-off date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of Para 11(4) of the Scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering preamended Para 11(3) as also the amended Para 11(4) of the Pension Sch

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top