Disposed

K. N. Venkataramaiah v. Union of India

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2023WP/1573/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Senior citizen pensioners sought a writ directing PF authorities to pay interest on pension arrears and recalculate pensions. The High Court held claims were covered by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar case and directed petitioners to submit representations for recalculatio

What did the court decide?

None directly granted; liberty reserved to submit representations for recalculatio of pension under Supreme Court directions.

K. N. Venkataramaiah Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.1573/2021 (L-PF)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.N. VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.P. NARASIMHAIAH, R/AT #8/2, 30/A, 4^TH CROSS,

¶8

NAGAPPA STREET, PALACE GOTTAHALLI, OPP. KECS SCHOOL, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/1991.

¶9

APPAJAPPA H., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE HOSURAPPA, R/AT # 35, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, VITTAL NAGARA, VITTAL VALLEY, ISRO LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 078. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/2785.

¶10

L. DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE LAKSHMANAPPA, R/AT # 43, JANGALPALYA, BEHIND SAI ABHYAS SCHOOL RAOD, BANNEGHATTA, BANGALORE – 560 083. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/2281.

¶11

RANGASWAMY M., AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE PAPANNA, R/AT # 8, 5^TH CROSS, SRIGANDHANAGARA,

¶12

¶13

NEAR SHOOTING HOUSE, SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE – 560 091. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/2521.

¶14

C. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMANNA GOWDA, R/AT #436, 2^ND FLOOR, 7^TH CROSS, SHASTRINAGARA, YEDIYUR LAKE, BANGALORE – 560 028. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/1860.

¶15

RAMACHANDRA K., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, R/AT # 75, CHINNAYANAPALYA, BTS ROAD, 17^TH CROSS, AUDOGODI POST, BANGALORE – 560 030. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/1195.

¶16

RAMAPPA A.M., AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, R/AT # 3, BASAVANNA TEMPLE STREET, AUDUGODI, BANGALORE – 560 030. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/869.

¶17

A.V. BUDHA NARAYASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE ARANTI VENKATAPPA, R/AT # 11, 3^RD CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, ABBAYAPPA LAYOUT, N.S. PALYA, BTM 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 076. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/1541.

¶18

JAGADAMBHA S.R., AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O. R. MURALI, R/AT # 273, ‘B’ BLOCK, B 3, FORTTUNE GLAD, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,

¶19

¶20

BANGALORE – 560 076. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/1531.

¶21

A.M. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O. LATE H.S. MANJUNATHA, R/AT # 31, ANEKERE, PRAMODA BADAVANE, NAYANDALLI, BANGALORE – 560 039. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/2131.

¶22

S.V. ANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE S.H. CHIKKA VENKATAPPA, R/AT # 304/19, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, S.G. PALYA, D.R.C. POST, BANGALORE – 560 029. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/799.

¶23

T. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O. LATE THIMMARAIAH NAIDU, #14, 1^ST B MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 010. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/2083.

¶24

RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH, NO. 18/17, 6^TH MAIN RAOD, CHIKKADUGUDI, DRC POST, BANGALORE – 560 029.

¶25

G.K. SOMASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. G.S. LATE KARISIDDAIAH, #516, 1^ST D CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 079. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/2751.

¶26

M.R. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶27

¶28

S/O. LATE REVANASIDDAPPA, #105, 7^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, SRINIVASANAGAR, B.S.K. III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 050. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/8085.

¶29

K.J. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. JAVARE GOWDA, # 31, 9^TH MAIN, DWARAKANAGARA, HOSKEREHALLI, B.S.K. III STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 085. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/2094.

¶30

M. NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE MADAIAH, # 5A, 1^ST MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, PILLAREDDY LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 076. EPF A/C. NO. PY/BOM/3713/2448.

¶31

... PETITIONERS

¶32

(NOTE: PETITIONERS 1 TO 17 ARE ALL SENIOR CITIZENS, SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶33

(BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI – 110 001. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶36

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 066.

¶37

¶38

REPRESENTED BY

¶39

THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, (CPFC).

¶40

THE ADDL. CENTRAL P.F. COMMISSIONER (HQ) ZONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA: GOA EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION “KAVERI”, BHAVISHYA NIDHI ENCLAVE HMT MAIN ROAD, JALAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 013.

¶41

THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU - 1 BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,, # 13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 025.

¶42

THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, KORAMANGALA “ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX”, # 37/1, 6^TH MAIN, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, SINGASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 068.

¶43

THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, YELAHANKA # 2, MARUTHI COMPLEX, 1^ST “A” MAIN, HIG “A” SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶44

THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, PEENYA # 62, 3^RD CROSS, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SUBURB, YESHWANTHPUR, 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 022.

¶45

BENGALURU URBAN, BENGALURU RURAL AND RAMANAGARA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ SOCIETIES UNION LTD., DR. M.H.MARI GOWDA ROAD, BANGALURU – 560 029. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS

¶46

¶47

(BY SRI K.N. KRISHNA RAO, CGC FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-7; SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-8)

¶48

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT PF AUTHORITIES TO PAY INTEREST ON THE ARREARS OF PENSION FROM THE DATE OF RETIREMENT TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT SINCE THEY HAVE ALREADY COLLECTED INTEREST ON THE DIFFERENCE OF CONTRIBUTION BY ISSUING THE DEMAND NOTES ISSUED BY R-5 VIDE ANNEXURE-B DATED 22.01.2019 ISSUED TO P-1, ANENXURE-B1 DATED 25.01.2019 ISSUED TO P-2, ANNEXURE-B2 DATED 22.11.2018 ISSUED TO P-3, ANNEXURE-B3 DATED 29.01.2019 ISSUED TO P-4, ANNEXURE-B4 DATED 10.12.2018 ISSUED TO P-5, ANNEXURE-B5 DATED 10.12.2018 ISSUED TO P-6, ANENXURE-B6 DATED 12.11.2018 ISSUED TO P-7, ANENXURE-B7 DATED 28.02.2019 ISSUED TO P-8, ANNEXURE-B8 DATED 14.12.2018 ISSUED TO P-9 ANNEXURE-B9 DATED 16.03.2019 ISSUED TO P-10, ANNEXURE-B10 DATED 14.12.2018 ISSUED TO P-11, ANEXURE-B11 DATED 05.02.2019 ISSUED TO P-12, ANNEXURE-B12 DATED 07.02.2019 ISSUED TO P-13, ANNEXURE-B13 DATED 12.11.2018 ISSUED TO P-14, ANNEXURE-B14 DATED 09.11.2018 ISSUED TO P-15, ANNEXURE-B15 DATED 19.02.2019 ISSUED TO PETITIONER NO.16 AND ANNEXURE-B16 DATED 12.12.2018 ISSUED TO P-17 TO THE PETITIONERS CONSIDERING INTER ALIA THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH DATED 16.12.2019 IN W.A. NO.1441/2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶49

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11/07/2023 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶50

¶51

O R D E R

¶52

The petitioners have sought for the following prayers:

¶53

“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent PF Authorities to pay interest on the arrears of pension from the date of retirement till the date of payment since they have already collected interest on the difference of contribution by issuing the following demand notes-

¶54

Sl. No.	Annexure No.	Demand Letter No. and Date	Issued by Respondent No.
1	B	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 92(5)/2018-19/174 dated 22.01.2019 issued to Petitioner No.1.	5
2	B1	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 92(5)/2018-19/188 dated 25.01.2019 issued to Petitioner No.2.	5
3	B2	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/361 dated 22.11.2018 issued to Petitioner No.3.	5
4	B3	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 92(5)/2018-19/197 dated 29.01.2019 issued to Petitioner No.4.	5
5	B4	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/401 dated 10.12.2018 issued to Petitioner No.5.	5
6	B5	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/398 dated 10.12.2018 issued to Petitioner No.6.	5

¶55

¶56

7	B6	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/335 dated 12.11.2018 issued to Petitioner No.7.	5
8	B7	KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92(5)/291/2018-19 dated 28.02.2019 issued to Petitioner No.8.	5
9	B8	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 92(5)/2018-19/121 dated 14.12.2018 issued to Petitioner No.9.	5
10	B9	KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92(5)/339/2018-19 dated 16.03.2019 issued to Petitioner No.10.	5
11	B10	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/415 dated 14.12.2018 issued to Petitioner No.11.	5
12	B11	KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92(5)/241/2018-19 dated 05.02.2019 issued to Petitioner No12.	5
13	B12	KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92(5)/240/2018-19 dated 07.02.2019 issued to Petitioner No.13.	5
14	B13	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/329 dated 12.11.2018 issued to Petitioner No.14.	5
15	B14	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/325 dated 09.11.2018 issued to Petitioner No.15.	5
16	B15	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/268 dated 19.02.2019 issued to Petitioner No.16.	5
17	B16	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C-	5

¶57

¶58

11(1)/2018-19/408 dated
12.12.2018 issued to
Petitioner No.17.

¶59

to the Petitioners considering inter alia the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 16.12.2019 in W.A. No. 1441/2019 produced at Annexure-J.

¶60

b) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the demand notes issued to Petitioners No.3, 5 to 11, and 14 to 17, only insofar as it relates to 1.16% contribution that was collected from them by issuing the following demand notes:-

¶61

Sl. No.	Annexure No.	Demand Letter No. and Date	Issued by Respondent No.
1	B2	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/361 dated 22.11.2018 issued to Petitioner No.3.	5
2	B4	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/401 dated 10.12.2018 issued to Petitioner No.5.	5
3	B5	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/398 dated 10.12.2018 issued to Petitioner No.6.	5
4	B6	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/335 dated 12.11.2018 issued to Petitioner No.7.	5
5	B7	KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92(5)/291/2018-19 dated 28.02.2019 issued to	5

¶62

10 -

¶63

		Petitioner No.8.
6	B8	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 92(5)/2018-19/121 dated 14.12.2018 issued to Petitioner No.9.	5
7	B9	KN/RO/BMS/SEC- 92(5)/339/2018-19 dated 16.03.2019 issued to Petitioner No.10.	5
8	B10	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/415 dated 14.12.2018 issued to Petitioner No.11.	5
9	B13	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/329 dated 12.11.2018 issued to Petitioner No.14.	5
10	B14	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/325 dated 09.11.2018 issued to Petitioner No.15.	5
11	B15	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/268 dated 19.02.2019 issued to Petitioner No.16.	5
12	B16	BG(Z)/BOM-2/A/C- 11(1)/2018-19/408 dated 12.12.2018 issued to Petitioner No.17.	5

¶64

and consequently issue a direction to the Respondent PF Authorities to refund the 1.16% contribution along with interest considering inter alia the decision taken by the Respondent PF Authorities themselves vide Annexure-G with a further direction to the Respondent No.1 to contribute 1.16% contribution as per Para 3 (2) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.

¶65

11 -

¶66

c) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the action of the Respondent PF Authorities in fixation of revised pension as can be seen in documents vide Annexure C, C1, C2 to C15 only insofar as it relates to non consideration of the arrears of salary, pay scale revision, promotional arrears, D.A., etc., for the purpose of determination of pensionable salary and calculation of pension and consequently issue a writ directing the Respondent PF Authorities to revise the pension taking into consideration the arrears of salary, pay scale revision, promotional arrears, D.A., etc.”

¶67

Heard Sri. Abhinav Ramanand .A, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. K.N. Krishna Rao, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent No.1, Smt. Nandita Haldipur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 7 and Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.8.

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in R.C. Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund

¶69

Organization and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809

¶70

12 -

¶71

[R.C. Gupta] vide order dated 04.10.2016, the respondents

¶72

are not granting the legitimate entitlements of pension to the petitioners on higher salary.

¶73

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents would submit that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Apex Court in the case of the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar .B and Ors. Etc., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1521 [Sunil Kumar] has issued certain directions on the basis of which, the pension amount has to be recalculated and the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court.

¶74

5. The Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case stated

¶75

supra has issued certain directions, which reads as under:

¶76

“44. We accordingly hold and direct:

¶77

(i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22^nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their

¶78

13 -

¶79

cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent subparagraphs.

¶80

(ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22^nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed.

¶81

(iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1^st September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.

¶82

(iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1^st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1^st

¶83

- 14 -

¶84

September 2014 did not provide for any cut off date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.

¶85

There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cutoff date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

¶86

Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with.

¶87

(v) The employees who had retired prior to 1^st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment

¶88

15 -

¶89

scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

¶90

(vi) The employees who have retired before 1^st 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.

¶91

(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

¶92

- 16 -

¶93

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.

¶94

(viii) We do not find any flaw in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary.

¶95

(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) (preamendment) 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.

¶96

(x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos.619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms.”

¶97

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend

¶98

that prayer in the petition at (b) is covered as per the directions of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case, whereas, prayer No.(a) and (c) are not covered.

¶99

17 -

¶100

In prayer Nos.(a) and (c), the petitioners have sought direction to the respondents to take into consideration, the arrears of salary including D.A. etc., for

¶101

the purpose of determination of pensionable salary and calculation of pension. Prayer No.(a) has sought a direction to the respondents to pay interest on the arrears of pension from the date of retirement till the date of payment, the entitlement of interest and prayer No.(c) is nothing but recalculation of pensionable amount and the same is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra, wherein at paragraph No.36 it is held as under:

¶102

“36. The other aspect of the controversy involves changing the method of computation of the pensionable salary. We have given the points and counter points articulated by the contesting parties pertaining to this feature of the controversy earlier in this judgment. In our opinion, this change of methodology comes within the power of the Central Government to modify a scheme under Section 7 of the 1952 Act read with item 10 of the Schedule III to the Act as also paragraph 32 of the scheme. This

¶103

18 -

¶104

alteration of computation is ancillary to determination of scale of pension alongwith pensionary benefits and paragraph 32 of the pension scheme specifically authorises the Central Government to alter the rate of contribution payable under the Scheme or the scale of any benefit admissible under the scheme. There is a reasonable basis for effecting change in the computation methodology for determining pensionable salary and we do not find any illegality or unconstitutionality in effecting this amendment.”

¶105

The Apex Court has held in the said para that a change of methodology comes within the power of the Central Government to modify a Scheme under Section 7 of 1952 Act read with item No.10 of Schedule III of the Act as also para No.32 of the Pension Scheme.

¶106

In light of the same, it would be appropriate, if this Court directs the petitioner/s to give representation/s to the pension authorities to recalculate the pension in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case stated supra.

¶107

19 -

¶108

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner/s to submit representation/s to the respondent-authorities and if such representation is/are made, respondent-authorities to consider the same, in light of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra, in accordance with law.

¶109

SD/JUDGE

¶110

MBM

K. N. Venkataramaiah v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. N. Venkataramaiah v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Ashwini R Vs the Commissioner

M/S Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd, Vs the Deputy Labour Commissioner

Sri.S.S.Mukunda Vs the Management of M/S Volvo Construction Equipments India Pvt. Ltd.

Fouress Engineering (India) Ltd. Vs Sri Rahmath Ali Khan

Sri. Channakrishnaiah C Vs Union of India

Ravikumar Kakade Vs Union of India