Senior citizens challenged non-payment of higher pension. The High Court held the petition is covered by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar and extended an interim order pending representations for recalculation.
Continued interim order until representation is considered by authorities in light of Sunil Kumar directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO.2184 OF 2021 (L-PF)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KRISHNA AMBIKA NAGARA, KAVOOR, MANGALURU - 570 015, DAKSHINA KANNADA.
(ALL THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 16 ARE SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 066. REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, (CPFC).
(BY SMT. NALINI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI MANJUNATH B., ADVOCATE FOR R-4; NOTICE TO R-1 & R-2 – SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATIONS – ANNEXURE-D – COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.KN/MLR/6937/150/HIGHER PENSION/COURT CASE/RJN/20/1234 DATED 19.10.2020 SENT BY RESPONDENT NO.3 TO PETITIONER NO.1 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION PERTAINING TO BENGALURU BENCH HAVING BEEN COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY THE COURT SITTING AT KALABURAGI BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 2184 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking for
the following reliefs:
NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 2184 of 2021
case/Rjn/20/1151 dated 19.10.2020 sent by Respondent No.3 to Petitioner No.5.
NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 2184 of 2021
case/Rjn/20/1233 dated 19.10.2020 sent by Respondent No.3 to Petitioner No.11.
And consequently, direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay pension on higher salary that was fixed by
them, as can be seen from Annexure C,C1,C2 to C15.
4. 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.
“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 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.”
7. The Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case stated
supra has issued certain directions, which reads as under:
NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 2184 of 2021
cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent subparagraphs.
NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 2184 of 2021
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.
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.
Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with.
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.
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.
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar
stated supra. 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.
NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 2184 of 2021
and if such representation is/are made, respondentauthorities to consider the same within a period of four weeks, in light of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra, in accordance with
law.
Sd/JUDGE
MBM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding higher pension entitlements is covered by the Supreme Court judgment in Sunil Kumar.
Whether the interim order in the petition should be continued pending representation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.C. Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and othersExplained¶76
R.C. Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others (2018) 14 SCC 809
the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar .B and Ors. Etc.Applied¶79
the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar .B and Ors. Etc. (2022) SCC Online SC 1521 · Who else cites this
D.S. SIDDAPPA AND OTHERS
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER, EPFO, MANGALURU
MANGALORE CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS LTD.
K.S. HEMALEKHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
