Employees seeking higher pension based on actual salary must demonstrate strict compliance with procedural requirements for exercising options as mandated by apex court rulings. Courts will not adjudicate claims contrary to settled legal positions on pension eligibility following amendments to the scheme.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

1.Heard.

Review Application No.113/2020

2.The present Review Petition is yet to be admitted by this Court. However, notice has been taken by the respondents. The petitioners in the writ petition are workers employed in the 8^th respondent establishment. They filed the main writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to pay pension based on higher wages. When the matter was listed on 17.08.2020, the learned Judge passed the following order: –

“Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the relief sought in the Writ Petition is to quash the letter issued by the Sixth Respondent in No. TN/CHN/Pension/ Regl/2019/restoration, dated 27.12.2019 and for a consequential direction to the Respondents to restore pension to the Petitioners on the actual salary under EPS, 1995 with effect from December 2019. It is contended that the claim is made pursuant to the relief granted to similarly placed persons in the order dated 27.03.2019 in W.P. No. 14368 of 2018 etc., batch passed by this Court quashing the order No. Pension-I/12/33/EPS Amendment/96 Vol.II dated 31.05.2017 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I (Pension). Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents informs that an appeal has been preferred in W.A. No. 3501 of 2019 before the Division Bench of this Court against the aforesaid order, which is pending.

2. In view of the aforesaid submissions made, it is necessary to await the outcome of the appeal in W.A. No. 3501 of 2019 by the Division Bench of this Court in order to examine the claim made by the Petitioner in this case.

Post the matter along with W.P. Nos. 20160 and 26825 of 2019 after the disposal of the aforesaid Writ Appeal.”

3.It is rather unfortunate that the petitioners chose to file a review application against an innocuous order passed by the learned Judge, which merely directed that the matter be posted along with a pending writ appeal for hearing by a Division Bench. The petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by such an order. They could have, at the appropriate stage, informed the Division Bench that their case was not connected with the writ appeal referred to in the interim order, or alternatively, could have independently argued the matter before the Division Bench by demonstrating the distinct nature of their case.

4.On the other hand, the review application itself came to be listed along with the main writ petition for final disposal after a delay of five years. The petitioners have achieved no substantive relief through this course, except to burden the Court with voluminous typed sets and compilations of judgments annexed to the review application. Moreover, there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review of the interim order dated 17.08.2020. Now that the main writ petition is being heard and disposed of on merits, the review application has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

W.P.No. 2861 of 2020

5.The standing counsel for the EPFO submitted that all writ petitions filed by similarly placed employees of the 7th and 8th respondents have already been disposed of by a common judgment rendered in a batch of cases beginning with W.P. No. 7851 of 2020, in M. Krishnamurthy & Others v. Union of India & Others, dated 10.03.2025. This submission was not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners. In the said common judgment, this Court issued the following directions, as reflected in paragraphs 10 to 16 of the order: –

“10. When Writ Petition No. 1630 of 2021 was presented before Justice M.Govindaraj on 03.02.2021, the following order was passed:

“2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation would submit that the matt