134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 01.09.2025 Balbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to restore the pension on higher wages granted to the petitioner in view of letter dated 29.01.2019 (Annexure P-

2).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner is retiree and has been superannuated from the service of respondent No.4 on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2013. The petitioner in the present writ petition retired prior to 01.09.2014 and had not been given benefit of the pension on higher wages under the Employees Pension Fund Scheme, 1995. He further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to the relief claimed by similarly situated employees as this Court in CWP No.5378 of 2024 and other connected cases, titled as Inderjit Singh Kaknian and others vs Union of India and others, decided on 12.09.2024, has categorically held that the employees who retired from service prior to 01.09.2014, without exercising an option under the un-amended para 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, filed an option after the judgment in R.C. Gupta vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization, (2018) 14 SCC 809 and whose options were accepted by the authorities, are entitled to enhanced pension benefits. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Inderjit Singh Kaknian’s case (supra). He further contends that the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.14622 of 2023 and other connected cases, titled as Employees Provident Fund Pensioners Welfare Association vs Union of India and others, decided on 28.03.2025, has already directed the Provident Fund Authorities to consider the case of each employee individually and pass a speaking order after hearing all the concerned persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he would be satisfied in case a direction is issued to respondent No.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in Inderjit Singh Kaknian’s case (supra)

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, the present petition is being decided in limine without issuing notice to the respondents in order to save judicial time of the Court and also the litigation costs of the respondents.

4. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order strictly in terms of the judgments passed by this Court in Inderjit Singh Kaknian’s case (supra) and Employees Provident Fund Pensioners Welfare Association’s case (supra), within a period of four months from today, after affording an opportunity of hearing to him. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner. Needless to say, if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief sought, the same shall be granted to him forthwith.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

01.09.2025

Neha