Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 64941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. Ramesh, R. Sakthivel, JJ
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1 Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, No.14, Bhikanji Cama Palace, New Delhi -110066 – Appellant
Versus
S.Babu S/o. Sadagopan A, No.83/1, Gopal Street (extn), Cheyyar - 604407 – Respondent
W.A.No.1237 of 2021 | CMP.No.7892 of 2021 | WP.No.17988 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Vishnu
For the Respondents: Mr.P. Mani for R1 to R29
Exempted and unexempted employees are entitled to higher pension benefits based on actual salary contributions, with invalid cut-off dates in pension schemes.
Headnote:(A) Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 - The court examined the entitlement to higher pension based on actual salary exceeding statutory limits, addressing the need for uniform applicability of benefit across exempted and unexempted establishments. (Paras 2, 7, 8, and 9)
Facts of the case:
The writ appeal challenges a single judge's order allowing revision of pension for employees from exempted establishments based on the Supreme Court ruling in a precedent case. The lower court found the existing circular restricting benefits was illegal. (Paras 1, 6, 11)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed directions allowing employees to claim pensions based on actual salary, asserting that the cut-off date was invalid and ordered the EPFO to accept returns from employees to adjust pension benefits. (Paras 7, 8, 10)
Issues: The court addressed whether the benefits announced in the RC Gupta ruling extend to employees of exempted establishments and the validity of the circular issued by the EPFO. (Paras 8, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that both exempted and unexempted employees should receive higher pensions based on actual salary contributions, emphasizing the legal inapplicability of cut-off dates. (Paras 7, 10, 16)
Result: Writ Appeals disposed of in terms of the Supreme Court's judgment. (Para 17)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of writ appeal and previous decisions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. entitlement based on contributions and employee pension scheme. (Para 3) |
| 3. previous circulars regarding pension scheme adjustments. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH.J)
This Writ Appeal has been filed to set aside the order of the Learned Judge passed in WP.No.17988 of 2019 dated 27.06.2019.
2.The prayer sought for by the respondents before the Writ Court was for consideration of their representation seeking revision of their pension in light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.C.Gupta and Others vs. Regional Provident Fund and others in Civil Appeal No(s).10013 to 10014 of 2016. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by following similar orders passed in the batch of other Writ Petitions, had allowed the Writ Petition, through its order dated 27.06.2019, which is under challenge before us.
3. It is now brought to our notice that the decision made in R.C.Gupta was referred to a Larger Bench, whereby the judgement was distinguished. Following the same, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case ofEmployees Provident Fund Organization & another vs. M.Narayanasamy and another made in W.A.Nos.2621 to 2624 of 2023 and etc., batch dated 07.02.2024, had taken note of this development in R.C.Gupta's case and had disposed of the Writ Appeals in terms of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others vs. Sunil Kumar B. and Others in SLP.C.No.8658 & 8659 of 2019. The said order reads as follows:
“All the appeals arising out of common Order passed in batch of Writ petitions, dated 27.03.2019. Some of the Writ petitions were filed to quash the Circular No. Pension-I/12/33/EPS Amendment/96 Vol.II dated 31.05.2017 and consequently to grant pension on higher wages. Set of Writ petitions have been filed seeking direction to direct the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO hereafter) to receive refund of provident fund amounts and allow the petitioners to receive their respective pensions based on their actual salary, as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court inRegional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. Vs. A. Majeed Kunju & Ors., dated 31.03.2016 andR.C. Gupta & Ors. Etc. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors Etc. dated 04.10.2016. Another set of Writ petitions have been filed seeking direction to direct the EPFO to revise the pension as per the circular, dated 23.03.2017.
2.The petitions were filed by two categories of employees: 1. Employees from exempted establishment under Section 17 of the Employee's Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF – MPA, 1952 hereafter) and 2. Un-exempted establishment, which are governed by the Provisions Act.
3.The Hon'ble Apex Court in R.C. Gupta and Ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Ors. [(2018) 14 SCC 809], dealt with the question of entitlement of members of the pension schemes, whose pensionable salary exceeded Rs.6,500/- per month, who exercise option in terms of proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the Employee's Pension scheme, 1995 and the Apex Court has held in paragraph 7, 8, 9 and 10 as follows:
“7. Reading the proviso, we find that the reference to the date of commencement of the Scheme or the date on which the salary exceeds the ceiling limit are dates from which the option exercised are to be reckoned with for calculation of pensionable salary. The said dates are not cut-off dates to determine the eligibility of the employer-employee to indicate their option under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. A somewhat similar view that has been taken by this Court in a matter coming from the Kerala High Court, wherein the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7074 of 2014 filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was re
