The court reaffirmed the binding nature of precedents set by previous judgments, allowing the petition for pension restoration based on established legal principles.

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: -

“7. RELIEF SOUGHT:

In the facts and circumstances of the present case the petitioner humbly prays that this petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing: -

a. Appropriate Writ, Direction, or order in the nature of mandamus or other, the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 be quashed for being illegal.

b. Appropriate Writ, Direction, or order in the nature of mandamus or other, the relegated Pension Order issued by the Respondent be quashed and the revised pension order issued on 11.12.2018 on the basis of actual wages be restored.

c . Appropriate Writ, Direction or order in the nature of mandamus or other, the Respondents be directed to calculate and pay the arrears of pension after restoring the rightful pension on the basis of full salary along with all other consequential benefit.

d. Appropriate Writ, Direction, or order in the nature of mandamus or other, the Respondent be directed to pay interest at the rate of 15% on the entire arrears of pension illegally withheld to the Petitioner.

e. Costs of this Petition be awarded. f. Any other appropriate relief, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit, be awarded to the Petitioner.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present cases is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by Coordinate Bench at Jabalpur in WP No.14425/2021 (Shiv Prasad Soni v. The Employees Provident Fund Organization & Others) and other connected writ petitions. The impugned order was quashed by the Coordinate Bench in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of R.C. Gupta & Others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization & Others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809 . It is also argued that after the said judgment, the respondents filed Review Petition No.334/2023 (The Regional P.F. Commissioner & Another v. Rammani Tiwari) in the light of subsequent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8658-8659 of 2019 (The Employees Provident Fund Organization & Another v. Sunil Kumar & Others). After considering both the judgments, the review petition has been dismissed with the following observation: -

“35. Now, as has been held by Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta (supra) that only adjustments are required to be made by the Provident Fund Commissioner and that being not disturbed by the Larger Bench of Supreme Court, there is no ground to review the order of this Court dated 15.06.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.14425/2021 and other connected matters.”

3. Learned counsel for the respondent - Employees Provident Fund Organization submits that against the order passed by Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No.14425 of 2021 and Review Petition No.334 of 2023, the respondents have filed writ appeal before the Division Bench, which is likely to be decided within a month. However, in the said appeal, stay has not been granted by the Division Bench. It is also contended that the law laid down in the aforesaid cases is not good law and ought not to be relied upon.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench in the case of Shiv Prasad Soni (supra) and in Review Petition No.334/2023 with which I do not find any reason to take a different view and the fact that the said order is not stayed by Division Bench, the same is binding on this Court, therefore, the present petition is also allowed, in terms of the order passed by Coordinate Bench in WP No.14425/2021 and Review Petition No.334/2023. The orders passed in the aforesaid cases shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present case. However, as the writ appeal on the subject matter is pending, then the order passed in the present petition shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ appeal, for which the learned counsel appearing for the pet