275 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-34394-2024 Date of decision: 27.10.2025 RAM LAL ....Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Tajeshwar Singh Sullar, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for calling the record of the impugned notice dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) issued by the respondent No.3 for re-examination of the cases of pension on higher wages of employees who had retired before 01.09.2014 without exercising any option under para 11(3) of pre-amended Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, and to set aside the same; with a further prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to restore the pension of the petitioner on higher wages granted by the respondent No.2 in consonance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.C. Gupta vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization, (2018) 14 SCC 809 (Annexure P-1) with all consequential benefits. A further prayer is made for issuing direction to respondents No.3 and 4 to not to proceed with any exercise of re-examination of pension on higher wages in pursuance to the impugned notice dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) and to continuously pay the monthly pension on higher wages.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.5378 of 2024 titled as Inderjit Singh Kaknian and others vs Union of India and others decided on 12.09.2024 whereby it has been 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, but filed an option after pronouncement of 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 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 petitioners submits that he would be satisfied in case a direction is issued to respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners and pass a speaking order in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in Inderjit Singh Kaknian’s case (supra).

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 could not controvert the fact that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Inderjit Singh Kaknian(supra).

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with their able assistance. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents – Provident Fund Authorities 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 of receiving a certified copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Further, the decision taken thereof shall be conveyed to the petitioner prompt