Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. Maria Clete, J
K. Perumal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.No. 3423 of 2021

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.Ajay Khose
For the Respondents: R.Vishnu, Bazeer Ahamed, Ramasubramaniam Associates

Administrative authorities are bound to implement the pension revision directives established by the Supreme Court, and court adjudication in such matters is restricted to ensuring compliance with the settled law on eligibility and calculation modalities.

Headnote:(A) Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 - Paragraph 11(3) - Revision of pension - Claim for pension based on actual salary - Employees seeking computation of monthly pension based on average of last 12 months’ pay instead of pro-rata 60 months’ average - Claimants asserting eligibility based on service duration and valid option exercise. (Paras 2, 14)

(B) Supreme Court Precedent - Binding nature - Authorities mandated to implement directives set forth in judgment of Apex Court regarding pension revision - Courts not to independently examine factual merits or eligibility issues already settled by binding precedent. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, a group of superannuated employees, challenged the refusal of statutory authorities to revise their monthly pension based on a 12-month average salary. They contended that having completed the requisite qualifying service and having continued employment beyond the specified cut-off date, they were entitled to pension benefits commensurate with their actual salary contributions. The matter was previously referred to a conciliation process which proved unsuccessful, necessitating this adjudication.

Findings of Court:
Internal findings emphasized that the issue of pension revision and the criteria for salary averaging, particularly in the context of previous legislative amendments, is governed by established Supreme Court jurisprudence. The court declined to re-adjudicate factual disputes or eligibility criteria that have been conclusively answered by the Apex Court, holding that administrative authorities are strictly bound to apply the directives issued in the governing precedent.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners are entitled to the revision of their monthly pension based on a 12-month average salary, and to what extent the court should intervene in determining their specific eligibility under the prevailing pension scheme regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: In view of the categorical pronouncement by the Supreme Court on the modalities for pension calculation and the exercise of options under the scheme, the High Court is bound by the judicial precedent and the specific directions mandated therein, precluding any deviation or re-examination of settled eligibility queries.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with a direction to authorities to implement the directives contained in the governing Supreme Court judgment.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek pension revision based on 12-month average. (Para 1 , 2)
2. compliance with supreme court sunil kumar case mandate. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

J U D G M E N T

1.Heard.

2.The petitioners—52 workers employed by various employers arrayed as respondents R7 to R15—have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to revise their pension based on the average of the last 12 months’ pay from the date of their superannuation, and to disburse the revised pension along with arrears and applicable interest. The writ petition was admitted on 18.02.2021 and directed to be heard along with the connected cases in W.A. No. 3501 of 2019. Subsequently, when the matter was listed on 05.11.2024, it was referred to the National Lok Adalat scheduled for 14.12.2024. However, as no settlement could be reached, the matter has been returned to this Court for adjudication on merits.

3.Learned counsel for the EPFO (respondents 2 to 6) submitted that the subject matter of the present case is squarely covered by the common judgment rendered in a batch of writ petitions 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.

4.In the said common judgment, this Court issued the following directions, with the operative portion set out in paragraphs 10 to 16, which read as follows: –

“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 matter is seized of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is listed for hearing on 26.02.2021.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Writ Petitions are not connected to the matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation would affirm that all these matters are connected to the matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court.

4. Therefore, recording the statement of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organisation that in the event of the appeals and the petitions are allowed in favour of the pensioners, the withhold amount will be paid along with interest, this Court directs the Registry to tag all these matters with W.A.No.3501 of 2019 and batch. In cases, where the application is not processed, the respondents are directed to process the application except for disbursing the money.”

11. When several other writ petitions raising similar grounds came before different learned judges, and considering the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, a Division Bench took cognizance of the issue. The Division Bench, comprising the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Justice Subramonium Prasad, initially passed the following order on 10.12.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 3501 of 2019 and the batch cases:

“It has been stated at the bar that as per the directions given by the Division Bench in the order dated 07.11.2019, as continued in the order dated 12.11.2019, the processing of the applications shall be undertaken and the employers would be under an obligation to despatch such applications to the Provident Fund Commissioner for the same being processed as per the directions hereinabove, as expeditiously as the applications are received.”

12. Subsequently, another Division Bench, by its order dated 25.04.2023 in W.P. No. 20160 of 2019 and related batch cases, issued the following interim order:

“The employees concerned in these cases and similarly placed employees whose cases are pending before this Court, are entitled to submit their option form through online and through physical mode, since it is represented that the employees are unable to access the site to submit their option form online and that the date

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11558

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASA.D. Maria Clete, JK. Perumal – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentW.P.No. 3423 of 2021

Administrative authorities are bound to implement the pension revision directives established by the Supreme Court, and court adjudication in such matters is restricted to ensuring compliance with the settled law on eligibility and calculation modalities.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. Maria Clete, J
K. Perumal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.No. 3423 of 2021