Dismissed

Mahesh Arora v. Union of India and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Sept 2023CWP/2195/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner, retired before September 1, 2014 without opting for the new pension scheme, was held excluded from the Supreme Court's judgment benefits based on the Apex Court's ruling interpreted for such employees.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of after directing the EPFO to take consequential action based on the Supreme Court judgment and the petitioner's exercised option.

Mahesh Arora Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.2195 of 2020 Decided on: 5^th September, 2023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mahesh Arora .....Petitioner Versus UOI & Ors. .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶3

Coram

¶4

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶5

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

_________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Nand Lal Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.2-RPFC.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Learned counsel for the parties on both sides are ad idem that the subject matter involved in this petition and the reliefs claimed therein have been adjudicated upon by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.8658-8659 of 2019 , titled as The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. Etc. Versus Sunil

¶9

Kumar B. & Ors. Etc. alongwith other connected

¶10

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

¶12

matters . Relevant portion from the judgment is extracted

¶13

hereinafter: -

¶14

“44 (i and iv)

¶15

( v) The employees who had retired prior to 1 st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

¶16

(vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014.

¶17

(vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees’ contribution shall be as stop gap measure.The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made.

¶18

(ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre-amendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph.”

¶19

¶20

2. The petitioner in this petition had retired prior

¶21

to 01.09.2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the Pre-amendment Scheme. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment has held that such of the employees, who had retired prior to 01.09.2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the Pre-amendment Scheme stood exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefits of judgment. However, upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme, they shall be covered by the provisions of paragraph 11(3) of the Pension Scheme as it stood prior to amendment of 2014.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO submits that based upon the option so exercised by the petitioner, consequential action in accordance with law and in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court shall be taken. Learned counsel further submits that case of the petitioner shall be scrutinized in accordance with law and fresh order shall be passed. His statement is taken note of.

¶23

It is hoped and expected that while carrying out

¶24

the above exercise, the respondent-EPFO shall keep in mind the time-limit framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In

¶25

¶26

case the petitioner still has any grievance, he is at liberty to

¶27

seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶28

With the above observations, this petition is disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s),

¶29

if any.

¶30

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 5, 2023 Judge (mamta)

Mahesh Arora v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Arora v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hem Raj and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Dharmi Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Neeta Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Vipan Kumar Kapoor Vs Union of India and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Saurabh Walia Vs State of Hp and Others