Disposed

Sri G Rajanna v. Union of India

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2023WP/8986/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging circulars regarding pension calculation, the High Court held that the case is covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Sunil Kumar. Disposing the petition, the Court directed petitioners to submit representations for pension recalculations within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty granted to petitioners to submit representations to respondent authorities for pension recalculations within two weeks.

Sri G Rajanna Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.8986 OF 2019 (L-PF)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI G. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. G.P. GOVINDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.281, 2^ND CROSS, 1^ST BLOCK, MANJUNATHANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶9

SRI C.K. PUTTAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. KOTTURAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.19, DEVARAJA BUILDING, ANJANEYASWAMY TEMPLE STREET, UTTARAHALLI,

¶10

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 061.

¶12

SRI T. RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. THIMMAIAH, C/O. THIMMAIAH, NO.171, BBMP 2^ND CROSS, SIDDAGUNTAPALYA, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 093.

¶13

SRI RANGANATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶15

S/O. MARKANDAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.99, “SUMUKHA”, SWATANTRANAGAR MAIN ROAD, AYYAPPANAGAR, NEAR SAPNA APARTMENT, DEVASANDRA, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU – 560 036.

¶16

SRI S.V. THIPPANNAVARA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. VEERABHADRAPPA, #10, NETHRA NILAYA, BEHIND POLICE QUTRAS, NEAR DEEPA HOSPITAL, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE – 560 025.

¶17

SRI B. MUDDU RAJA URS, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNA RAJA URS, RESIDING AT NO.26, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶18

SRI B. SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. BOREGOWDA, RESIDING AT SNEHA NILYA, 22^ND CROSS, V.V. NAGAR, KALLAHALLI EXTENSION, MANDYA – 574 201.

¶19

SRI D. MALLESHAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. DODDAMALLAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.10/3, 2^ND CROSS, I STAGE, NEAR 150/B, BEML LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 079.

¶20

SRI. DODDASOMARADHYA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. KUMARARADHYA, RESIDING AT NO.694, 13^TH MAIN,

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶22

1^ST BLOCK, III STAGE, BASAVESWARANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 079.

¶23

SRI T.S. VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. SANNAPPA, RESIDENT OF KARAGAPARAMESWARI NILAYA, 2^ND MAIN, ADARSHANAGAR,

¶24

OPP. TO GOVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEGE,

¶25

MALURU– 563 130.

¶26

SRI. KASHIRAO AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. YELLOJIRAO, RESIDING AT NO.82/6, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, SHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶27

SRI SHIVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE SIDDALINGAPPA, RESIDING AT PHC CENTRE, JADIGENAHALLI, HOSAKOTE, BENGALURU – 560 023.

¶28

SRI SHANKARAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. KARIYAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.35, NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE, UDAYANAGAR, DOORAVANINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 016.

¶29

SRI H.K. GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, R/AT KURUBAGERE POST, TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU NORTH – 562 130.

¶30

SRI T.G. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶32

S/O. GANGANNASHETTARU, RESIDING AT NO.718, CHENNABASAVESHWARA NILAYA, 7^TH B CROSS, DEFENSE COLONY, BAGLUGUNTE, BANGALORE – 560 073.

¶33

SRI NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. CHANNARAYAPPA, RESIDENT OF KODAGADALA, PURAWARA POST, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 577 101.

¶34

SRI C.S. SHIVASHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. C.B. SIDDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.770, SHIVAPRIYA, 3^RD CROSS, NORTH BLOCK, UPKAR RESIDENCY, ULLAL ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶35

SRI G.M. VENKATESHAIAH

¶36

AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O. MUTTAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.24, 4^TH B MAIN ROAD, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA I BLOCK, DURGAMMA TEMPLE STREET, BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶37

SRI E CHANDRASHEKAR RAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. CHINNAIAH RAJU, RESIDING AT NO.73, HAMSAVENI NILAYA, HOODI GARDEN, WHITEFIELD ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 058.

¶38

SRI M.C. GANGAREVAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶39

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶40

S/O. CHIKKAREVANNA, RESIDING AT NO.9A, 22^ND MAIN, I CROSS, SUBBANNA GARDEN (BMTC 5^TH DEPOT), VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 050.

¶41

SRI SHIVANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O. NANJUNDAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.361, 11^TH MAIN, 3^RD STAGE, MANJUNATHANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 010.

¶42

SRI UMESH R.S. AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9/10, 4^TH CROSS, VIVEKANANDA CIRCLE, SRIGANDANAGAR, HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶43

SRI B.H. KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O. HANUMAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.242, BYADARAHALLI, VISWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU – 560 091.

¶44

SRI M. NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. MAHADEVAPPA, #V85, 5^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, BHK 5^TH STAGE, NEAR PATALLAMMA TEMPLE, BANGALORE – 560 061.

¶45

SRI M.N. RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE. NINGEGOWDA, #165/9, 6^TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, SONNANAHALLI, BANGALORE – 560 082.

¶46

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶47

SRI G. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE GUNDAPPA, RESIDING AT MAYASANDRA, CHIKKANAHALLI POST, BANGALORE SOUTH – 567 201.

¶48

(ALL THE PETITIONERS HAVE NOT CLAIMED ANY SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS)

¶49

... PETITIONERS

¶50

(BY SRI MUKKANNAPPA S.B., ADVOCATE)

¶51

AND:

¶52

UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG,

¶53

NEW DELHI – 110 001.

¶54

CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) EMPOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, MINISTY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 066.

¶55

ADDL. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, HQ (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 066.

¶56

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - I (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 066.

¶57

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶58

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, RAJARAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, POST BOX NO.25146, BANGALORE – 560 027.

¶59

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶60

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BMTC, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶61

KSRTC EMPLOYEES CONSTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND TRUST, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

¶62

... RESPONDENTS

¶63

(BY SRI SHANTI BHUSHAN, DSG FOR R-1;

¶64

SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-5; SMT. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 TO R-8)

¶65

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED LETTER/CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT NO. PENSION/I/12/33/EPS AMENDMENT/96 VOL-II DATED 31.05.2017 AND QUASH THE ADVERSE OBSERVATION / ORDER / CIRCULAR MADE IN PARA [V] OF ANNEXURE-C OF THE IMPUGNED LETTER/CIRCULAR AND CONSEQUENTLY, DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 TO GRANT PENSION ON HIGHER WAGES UNDER EPS, 1995 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶66

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:

¶67

¶68

NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶69

ORDER

¶70

The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking for

¶71

the following reliefs:

¶72

“a) ISSUE a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter/circular issued by the 4^th respondent No. Pension/I/12/33/EPS Amendment/96 Vol-II, dated 31-5-2017 and quash the adverse observation/order/circular made in para (v) of Annexure-C of the impugned letter/circular and consequently, direct the respondents No.2 to 5 to grant pension on higher wages under EPS, 1995 under the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶73

b) And pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”

¶74

2. Heard Sri. Mukkannappa S.B., learned counsel

¶75

for the petitioners, Sri. Shanti Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General for respondent No.1, Smt. Nandita Haldipur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and

¶76

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶77

Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 8.

¶78

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 Organization and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809 [R.C. Gupta] vide order dated 04.10.2016, the respondents are not granting the legitimate entitlements of pension to the petitioners on higher salary.

¶79

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.

¶80

10 -

¶81

NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶82

5. The Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar

¶83

stated supra has held at paragraph No.36 as under:

¶84

“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.”

¶85

The Apex Court has held in the said para, that a

¶86

change of methodology comes within the power of the Central Government to modify a Scheme under Section 7

¶87

11 -

¶88

NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶89

of 1952 Act read with item No.10 of Schedule III of the

¶90

Act as also para No.32 of the Pension Scheme.

¶91

The Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case stated

¶92

supra has issued certain directions, which reads as under:

¶93

“44. We accordingly hold and direct:

¶94

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

¶95

(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.

¶96

(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

¶97

12 -

¶98

NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶99

September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.

¶100

(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 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.

¶101

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

¶102

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶103

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.

¶104

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

¶105

(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.

¶106

(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.

¶107

(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

¶108

14 -

¶109

NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶110

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.

¶111

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

¶112

(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

¶113

11(3) (preamendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall

¶114

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶115

implement the directives contained in the said judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph.

¶116

(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.”

¶117

The present petition is squarely covered by the 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.

¶118

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage,

¶119

submits that the interim order granted by this Court on 04.09.2020 to be continued till consideration of the representation by the respondent-authority.

¶120

16 - NC: 2023:KHC:28874 WP No. 8986 of 2019

¶121

There is substantial force in the contention of

¶122

the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the interim order granted by this Court on 04.09.2020 in W.P. No.8767/2020 to be continued till the consideration of the representation by the respondent, in accordance with law.

¶123

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner/s to submit representation/s to the respondent-authorities within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order 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.

¶124

MBM

¶125

Sd/JUDGE

Sri G Rajanna v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Rajanna 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

K. N. Venkataramaiah Vs Union of India

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

Sri. Channakrishnaiah C Vs Union of India

D S Siddappa Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

H Jayaprakash Shetty Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Superintendent of Police Vs State of Karnataka