In this writ petition, the petitioner, retired in 2009 without exercising a specific scheme option, sought enhanced pension citing recent Supreme Court decisions granting relief to similar employees. The High Court examined the retirement date and the scheme provisions to determine the applicant's eligibility for the revised pension.
No
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.
W.P.No.2527 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
W.P.No.2527 of 2020
S.Swaminathan
... Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to grant enhanced pension to the petitioner.
Page 1 of 6
For Petitioner : Mr.Yudhish Padman For Respondents : Mr.R.Vishnu, Standing counsel
W.P.No.2527 of 2020
ORDER
The petitioner was working for the company 'Curzon' for 23
years and retired from service on 10.10.2009. The petitioner has filed the
present Writ Petition seeking enhancement of pension in view of the
decision of the Hon'ble supreme Court in R.C.Gupta & Ors. Vs.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund
organization & Ors. reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809 .
the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organization & anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar.B & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912 has held as follows:
44(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.
(iv) The members of the scheme, who did not
Page 2 of 6
W.P.No.2527 of 2020
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 cutoff date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph11(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 20 who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off 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
Page 3 of 6
W.P.No.2527 of 2020
requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with.
(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.
(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.”
from service on 10.10.2009 which is prior to 1st September 2014 and he had not exercised his option under paragraph 11(3) of the preamendment Scheme 95 and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of revised pension. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
06.10.2023
Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order vum
To
Page 4 of 6
W.P.No.2527 of 2020
R. HEMALATHA, J.
Page 5 of 6
W.P.No.2527 of 2020
vum
W.P.No.2527 of 2020
06.10.2023
Page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who retired on 10.10.2009 and did not exercise the option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme is entitled to enhanced pension based on the Supreme Court's subsequent
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
R.C.Gupta & Ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund organization & Ors.Referred¶23
R.C.Gupta & Ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund organization & Ors. (2018) 14 SCC 809
Employees Provident Fund Organization & anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar.B & Ors.Referred¶2638
Employees Provident Fund Organization & anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar.B & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 912
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Swaminathan
The Central PF Commissioner EPFO
The Regional PF Commissioner EPFO
The Assistant PF commissioner EPFO
The Managing Director Green Tea Estate (Curzon)
R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
