Dismissed¶5

Pradeep Kumar Sur v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Chhattisgarh HC19 Jul 2026WA/608/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WA No. 608 of 2026; Pradeep Kumar Sur vs. EPFO and others; writ appeal dismissed following WA No.516/2026 (R.K. Chalisgaonkar); higher pension; Employees' Pension Scheme 1995; Paragraph 2(ix) Explanation; Paragraph 11(3) option; retirement prior to 01.09.2014; deletion of proviso to Paragraph 11(3); Sunil Kumar B.; Powergrid Retired Employees' Association v. Union of India (WPC No.97/2025); R.C. Gupta; intra-court appeal; no interference; decided 20.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

The facts and issue involved in this appeal being identical to WA No.516/2026, the Court deemed it appropriate not to take a view other than the one taken in WA No.516/2026. ¶4

Pradeep Kumar Sur Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.07.20 17:26:16 +0530

CGHC010200552026

2026:CGHC:30549-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WA No. 608 of 2026

¶8

Pradeep Kumar Sur S/o Shri N K Sur Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Bhagutola, Kawardha Rajnandgaon Road Kawardha District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Employees Provident Fund Organization Through Commissioner, Regional Office, Block-D, Scheme-32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation Through Its Managing Director, Urla, Post B M Y Charouda, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (M P C G) Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Zonal Office - Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 59 Arera Hill, Bhopal, District Bhopal M.P.

¶14

	... Respondents
(Cause-title	taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant	:Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate
For Respondents	:Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

20.07.2026

¶19

1. Heard Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶20

¶21

2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.7731/2024 and other connected matters, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/ writ petitioner.

¶22

3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this writ appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 23.06.2026 passed in WA No.516/2026 (R.K. Chalisgaonkar vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization & Others ) , wherein this Court held as under:-

¶23

“9. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Single Judge held that in terms of the Explanation appended to Paragraph 2(ix) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, an employee ceases to be a member of the Pension Fund upon attaining the age of 58 years or upon vesting of admissible benefits under the Scheme, whichever occurs earlier. The learned Single Judge further held that the amendment introduced with effect from 01.09.2014, including the deletion of the proviso to Paragraph 11(3), was intended to apply only to existing members who continued in service on the said date and not to employees who had already retired and ceased to be members of the Pension Fund. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Sunil Kumar B. (supra) and

¶24

¶25

Powergrid Retired Employees’ Association v. Union of India and Others decided on 19.03.2025 in WPC No.97/2025, it was observed that employees who had retired prior to 01.09.2014 without exercising the option contemplated under Paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amended Scheme were not entitled either to the benefit of the decision in R.C. Gupta or to the benefits flowing from the 2014 amendment. Since the writ petitioner had admittedly retired prior to 01.09.2014 and had exercised the option only in the year 2018 after the decision in R.C. Gupta, without establishing that any option had been exercised prior to retirement or that contributions on higher wages had been remitted under Paragraph 11(3), the learned Single Judge concluded that the respondents were justified in withdrawing the benefit of higher pension and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition.

¶26

10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned

¶27

¶28

order.

¶29

11. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ”

¶30

They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 516/2026, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms.

¶31

4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No.516/2026, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No.516/2026.

¶32

5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 23.06.2026 passed in WA No.516/2026 .

¶33

Sd/Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶34

Anu

Pradeep Kumar Sur v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Sur v. Employees Provident Fund Organization

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs Branch Manager Punjab National Bank

Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs Branch Manager Punjab National Bank

Agriculture Insurance Company of India Ltd. Vs Branch Manager

Mohan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Karan Choudhary @ Karan Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satya Prakash Verma Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization