238-2 cases IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.02.2026

1. CWP-25596-2024 Om Parkash Miglani and another ....Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents

2. CWP-25626-2024 Krishan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Amit Sharma (Kanav), Advocate with Ms. Deepankur Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Jaskiran Kaur Basi, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in both cases.

Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 in CWP-25626-2024 & for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP-25596-2024.

Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for respondent No.4 in CWP-25596-2024.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. This common judgment shall dispose of both the aforementioned petitions as they are arise from a similar factual matrix and pose an identical question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.25596 of 2024

2. The present 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 quashing the impugned notice dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.3, whereby re-examination of cases pertaining to pension on higher wages for employees who had retired prior to 01.09.2014 without exercising option under para 11(3) of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 as it stood prior to the amendment, has been ordered in purported compliance of the judgment dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in EPFO v. Sunil Kumar B., SLP (C)

No.8658-8659 of 2019 A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to restore the pension on higher wages which already granted to the petitioner in consonance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as R.C. Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Civil Appeal No (S).10013-10014 of 2016, decided on 04.10.2016 (Annexure P-1).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that as pre-2014 retirees, the petitioners were directly affected by the legal developments following the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta’s case (supra). In compliance thereof, the respondents secured approval from the Central Government and issued a conscious policy decision through Circular dated 23.03.2017 (Annexure P-2) stipulating that higher pension be granted to all retirees who had contributed to the Provident Fund with respect to their actual salary. Pursuant to this circular, the petitioners exercised a joint option. Consequently, the respondent No.2 issued a demand letter on 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-3) and the petitioners deposited the requisite differential amount, leading to a corresponding enhancement of their pension, based on their actual salary. However, the respondents have now sought to re- examine this entitlement. This has resulted in the issuance of the impugned notice dated 10.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) and the subsequent reduction of the petitioners' pension to the statutory wage ceiling. Learned counsel further submits that the controversy at hand is no longer res integra being squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-5378-2024 titled as Inderjit Singh Kaknian and others v.

Union of India and Others, decided on 12.09.2024 (Annexure P-7)

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents is not in a position to distinguish the case of the petitioner(s) from the petitioner in Inderjit Singh Kaknian’s case (supra).

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, it appears that the present controversy stands settled by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Inderjit Singh Kaknian’s case (supra). The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under:

“(i) There was no particular cut-off date in the unamended proviso to Paragraph 11(3) of the Pension Sche