Disposed

Ravikumar Kakade v. Union of India

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2023WP/9487/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners challenged pension endorsements as arbitrary, claiming higher pension based on Supreme Court judgments (R.C. Gupta, Sunil Kumar). Court held the matter was covered by Sunil Kumar directions, disposing of the petition by directing petitioners to submit representations for pension recalculation to authorities.

What did the court decide?

Disposed; liberty to submit representations to authorities for recalculation of pension as per Sunil Kumar directions.

Ravikumar Kakade 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.9487/2020 (L-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1. RAVIKUMAR KAKADE, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA RAO. K.T #416, 1^ST CROSS, BHCS LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 061.

¶8

EPF NO. PY/BOM/6787/840 OLD PPO NO. BG/MRD/4732.

¶9

A.M. SHIVAKUMAR, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. A.R. MURIGENDRA GOUD, #241, ESHWARI, BEML, 3^RD STAGE, RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 098. EPF NO : PY/BOM/6787/9261 OLD PPO NO. BG/MRD/3314.

¶10

CHANDRASHEKAR .D AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. BYRAPPA, #32, “SHARADHA”, 29^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 7^TH BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 070. EPF NO : PY/BOM/6787/1073 OLD PPO NO. KN/BNG/33158.

¶11

K.A. RAJA GOPAL AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE K.K. AIYANNA, #90/H, SHANTHINIKETHANA MAIN ROAD, 2^ND RIGHT CROSS, ARAKERE, BANGALORE – 560 076.

¶12

¶13

EPF NO : PY/BOM/6787/555. OLD PPO NO. BG/MRD/2750.

¶14

G. KRISHNA REDDY AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. GOPAL REDDY, #373,2^ND MAIN, 5^TH AVENUE, TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034. EPF NO : PY/BOM/6787/1281 OLD PPO NO. BG/BNG/71560.

¶15

NAGARAJU .K.N AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. K.N.NARAYANA RAO,, #43, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE – 560 011 EPF NO :PY/BOM/6787/855 OLD PPO NO. PY/BOM/2867.

¶16

SHANMUKHA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE GANGAPPA, #172, SHIVANI GREENS LAYOUT, KADABGERE POST, NEAR MUTTURAYASWAMY TEMPLE, BANGALORE – 562 130. EPF NO :KN/BN/6787/1518 OLD PPO NO. PY/PNY/22017.

¶17

R. NAGABHUSHANAM AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. R.NANJUNDAPPA, 57/, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE – 560 004 EPF NO :BG/BOM/11785/910 OLD PPO NO. KN/BNG/65930.

¶18

NARASIMHE GOWDA .V, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. VYKUNTE GOWDA #762, 13^TH B MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE – 560 064. EPF NO :BG/BNG/11785/929

¶19

¶20

OLD PPO NO. BG/BNG/70980.

¶21

SINGANNAGOWDA, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. VAIKUNTEGOWDA, NO.1268, HIG, 7 B CROSS ROAD, RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAMA, YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, NORTH YALAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 064. EPF NO :BG/BNG/9899/323 OLD PPO NO. BG/BNG/70263.

¶22

K.G. GANGAIAH AGED 64YEARS, S/O. GANGAIAH #790, GROUND FLOOR, 9^TH A MAIN, 8^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, R.P.C. LAYOUT, BANGALORE – 560 104. EPF NO :PY/BOM/3713/2631. OLD PPO NO. PY/BOM/8552.

¶23

PUTTASWAMY, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. LINGE GOWDA #563/37 B, 6^TH CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION, CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DIST. – 562 160. EPF NO :PY/BOM/3713/2704 OLD PPO NO. BG/MRG/3682.

¶24

SADASIVAIAH .B AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. BHADRAIAH #18, REVANNA SIDDEESWARA NILAYA 3^RD CROSS, MUNESWARA BLOCK, PARVATHI NAGARA, LAGGARE, BANGALORE- 560029. EPF NO :PY/BOM/3713/2400. OLD PPO NO. PY/PNY/20745.

¶25

1. ESHWAR K.A.S., AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE KALLABASAVAIAH, #1507, 1^ST FLOOR, 29^TH MAIN, ‘D’ GROUP LAYOUT, SRIGANDADAKAVAL,

¶26

¶27

BANGALORE – 5600 91. EPF NO :KN/3713/2508. OLD PPO NO. BG/MRD/10344 & PPO NO. PYBOM00004102 AT PF OFFICE, BOMMASANDRA.

¶28

JAYARAMEGOWDA.K. AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. NINGAIAH #131, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, NEW BDA LAYOUT, AVALAHALLI, GIRI NAGARA, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BANGALORE – 560 085. EPF NO :PY/PNY/6739/305. OLD PPO NO. PY/PNY/24670.

¶29

1. E. NARAYANA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O. ERE GOWDA, BASAVA BHAVANA, 6^TH CROSS, VEERBHADRA NAGARA, BASAVANAGARA (HAL), MANGALORE – 560 037. EPF NO:KN/6739/357 OLD PPO NO. PY/PNY/26248. ... PETITIONERS

¶30

(PETITIONERS ARE SENIOR CITIZENS AND SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS ARE NOT CLAIMED)

¶31

(BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

REPRESENTED BY

¶37

THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, (CPFC).

¶38

1. THE ADDL. CENTRAL P.F. COMMISSIONER (HQ) ZONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA: GOA EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION “KAVERI”, BHAVISHYA NIDHI ENCLAVE

¶39

HMT MAIN ROAD, JALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 013.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

1. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR (MYSORE ROAD) #570, 26^TH CROSS, IDEAL HOME CO-OP SOCIETY LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 098.

¶43

1. 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

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

¶45

¶46

1. THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, TUMKUR 1^ST FLOOR, BILWASHREE ARCADE, 15^TH CROSS, S.I.T. MAIN ROAD, TUMKUR– 572 103.

¶47

1. THE KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ FEDERATION LIMITED KMF COMPLEX, M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD,

¶48

HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶49

1. MOTHER DAIRY, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶50

1. RAJANKUNTE CATTLEFEED PLANT, RAJANUKUNTE, BANGALORE – 560 064. REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶51

1. 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.

¶52

1. TUMKURU DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS’ SOCIETIES UNION LTD., B.H. ROAD, MALLASANDRA, TUMKUR – 572 102. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY DSG FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 TO R-4, R-5, R-6, R-8, R-9; SRI B. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-10, R-11; SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-13; R-12 & R-14 ARE SERVED)

¶54

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FOLLOWING ENDORSEMENT/COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE

¶55

¶56

RESPONDENT PF AUTHORITIES TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO THE WRIT PETITION AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA; I. ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/141 DATED 29.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6^TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1^ST PETITIONER VIDE K AND ETC.

¶57

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:

¶58

O R D E R

¶59

The petitioners have sought for the following prayers:

¶60

“(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the following endorsement/communication issued by the Respondent PF Authorities to the Petitioners herein to the Writ Petition as being arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of India;

¶61

i. Endorsement bearing No. BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/141 dated

¶62

29.05.2019 issued by the 6^th Respondent to the 1^st Petitioner vide K.

¶63

ii. Endorsement bearing No. BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/148 dated

¶64

28.05.2019 issued by the 6^th Respondent to the 4^th Petitioner vide K1.

¶65

iii. Endorsement bearing

¶66

No.

¶67

BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/145 dated

¶68

¶69

28.05.2019 issued by the 6^th Respondent to the 12^th Petitioner vide K2.

¶70

iv. Endorsement bearing No. BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/147 dated 28.05.2019 issued by the 6^th Respondent to the 14^th Petitioner vide K3.

¶71

v. Endorsement bearing No. BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/137 dated 29.05.2019 issued by the 6^th Respondent to the 15^th Petitioner vide K4.

¶72

No.

¶73

vi. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/554 dated 03.09.2019 issued by the 5^th Respondent to the 1^st Petitioner vide K5.

¶74

vii. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/552 dated 03.09.2019 issued by the 5^th Respondent to the 2^nd Petitioner vide K6.

¶75

viii. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (3)/2019-2020/573 dated 18.09.2019 issued by the 5^th Respondent to the 3^rd Petitioner vide K7.

¶76

ix. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/556 dated 03.09.2019 issued by the 5^th Respondent to the 4^th Petitioner vide K8.

¶77

¶78

x. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/558 dated 03.09.2019 issued by the 5^th Respondent to the 5^th Petitioner vide K9.

¶79

xi. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (3)/2019-2020/571 dated 18.09.2019 issued by the 5^th Respondent to the 6^th Petitioner vide K10.

¶80

xii. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/526 dated 23.08.2019 issued by the 5^th Respondent to the 11^th Petitioner vide K11.

¶81

xiii. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/538 dated 03.09.2019 issued by the 5^th Respondent to the 12^th Petitioner vide K12.

¶82

xiv. Endorsement bearing No.

¶83

KN/PNY/PENSION/293/2019-20 dated 03.06.2019 issued by the 8^th Respondent to the 7^th Petitioner vide K13.

¶84

xv. Endorsement bearing No. KN/PNY/PENSION/293/2019-20 dated 03.06.2019 issued by the 8^th Respondent to the 13^th Petitioner vide K14.

¶85

xvi. Endorsement bearing No. BG/MRD/NAN/201920 dated 10.06.2019 issued by the 6^th Respondent to the 1^st , 2^nd , 4^th and 15^th Petitioner vide K15;

¶86

10 -

¶87

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondents No.1 to 9 to revise pension on higher salary on the basis of the contributions made by the Petitioners and their employers, to pay and continue to pay the revised monthly pension to the Petitioners considering inter alia the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (SLP No. 330332/2015) and also the circular issued by the 2^nd Respondent dated 22.01.2019 to all Regional PF Commissioners at Annexure E and Annexure L to the Petition;

¶88

(c) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondents No.1 to 9 to pay arrears along with interest on the pension that had to be paid from the date that it fell due but is not yet paid, considering inter alia the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (SLP No. 330332/2015) and also the circular issued by the 2^nd Respondent dated 22.01.2019 to all Regional PF Commissioners at Annexure E and Annexure L to the Petition;

¶89

(d) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent PF Authorities to refund 1.16 % amount that was illegally collected from the

¶90

11 -

¶91

Petitioners along with interest considering inter alia the decision taken by the Respondent PF Authorities themselves as per Annexure- O.

¶92

(e) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent PF Authorities to pay interest on the contribution made by the Petitioners on the demand note issued by the Respondent PF Authorities at bank lending rate, as the Petitioners’ money has been illegally held;

¶93

(f) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent No.1 to 9 to take into consideration, the arrears of salary, payscale revision, D.A., e.t.c., for the purpose of determination of pensionable salary and calculation of pension;

¶94

(g) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent PF Authorities particularly Respondent No. 5 to disburse payment of pension to the Petitioner No.4 whose pension has been illegally stopped by the Respondent PF Authorities;

¶95

(h) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction quashing the action of the 9^th Respondent in recrediting the difference of contribution amount with interest back to the account of the 16^th Petitioner with Canara Bank, Tumkur Main Branch Vide Annexure B1 and as a consequence issue a writ in the nature of

¶96

12 -

¶97

mandamus to revise the pension on the basis of higher salary and pay revised pension considering interalia the judgment of the Hon’ble Suprme Court in R.C. Gupta and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 7 Ors. (SLP No. 330332/2015) and also the circular issued by the 2^nd Respondent dated 22.01.2019 to all Regional PF Commissioners at Annexure L to the Petition.”

¶98

Heard Sri. Abhinav Ramanand .A, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Nandita Haldipur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 9, Sri. B. Sudhakar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 and 11 and Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.13.

¶99

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

¶100

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.

¶101

13 -

¶102

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents

¶103

would submit that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Apex Court in the case of the Employees Provident

¶104

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.

¶105

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

¶106

supra has issued certain directions, which reads as under:

¶107

“44. We accordingly hold and direct:

¶108

(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.

¶109

14 -

¶110

(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.

¶111

(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.

¶112

(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

¶113

15 -

¶114

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.

¶115

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.

¶116

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

¶117

(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.

¶118

16 -

¶119

(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.

¶120

(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

¶121

17 -

¶122

measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made.

¶123

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

¶124

(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.

¶125

(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.”

¶126

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that prayer in the petition at (d) is covered as per the directions of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case, whereas, prayer Nos.(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) are not covered.

¶127

18 -

¶128

In prayer Nos.(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h),

¶129

the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to

¶130

take into consideration, the arrears of salary including D.A. etc., for the purpose of determination of pensionable salary and calculation of pension, 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 the prayer sought at the said paragraphs 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:

¶131

“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

¶132

19 -

¶133

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.”

¶134

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.

¶135

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.

¶136

20 -

¶137

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.

¶138

SD/JUDGE

¶139

MBM

Ravikumar Kakade v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikumar Kakade 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.

K. N. Venkataramaiah Vs Union of India

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

Sri. Channakrishnaiah C Vs Union of India