Sukhjit Singh Chahal and Ors. Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors.

Present : Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate f or the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate f o r respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advoca t e for respondents No.5 and 6.

¶13

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

¶14

The present writ petition has b een filed under Article 226/2 2 7 of the Con s titution of India for issuance o f an appropriate writ or order i n the nature o f certiorari for quashing the i m pugned order dated 11.09.2019 (Annexure P-7) rejecting the pension revi s ion case for allowing the bene f it of exceedi n g wage limit under Employees P ension Scheme primarily on t h e ground of n on obtaining of permission u n der Para 26(6) of EPF Schem e , 1952 again s t the law laid down by Hon’bl e Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta’s case and f u rther prayed to quash order d a ted 28.08.2020 (Annexure P-1 0 ) r being non speaking and contrary of the settled law. Further praying f o issuance o f a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Ba n k to resubmi t the case of petitioners to the r espondent RPFC Commissione r ,

¶15

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

2

¶17

CWP-1807 3 -2020

¶18

Amritsar a n d direct the RPFC authorities t o accept the claim of petitione r s and recalc u late the amount to be deposite d along with interest and intima t e the same w i thin specified period and releas e all consequential benefits.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petiti o ners, inter alia , contends that t h e petitioners are entitled to the revision o f their pension based upon t h e - judgment r e ndered by Hon’ble Supreme C ourt in Civil Appeal Nos.10013 10014 of 2016, R.C. Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Fund Organization and others, (Annexure P- 2 ) wherein it was held that all the emplo y ees are entitled for revision o f r pension irr e spective of the fact that such o p tion was given during service o not. Respo n dent No.1 issued instructions o n 23.03.2017 (Annexure P-3) i n compliance of the aforesaid judgment (An n exure P-2), which was follow e d by another set of instructions dated 21.06 . 2017 and 08.06.2018 (Annexu r e n P-4 & 5) r e spectively. On 04.10.2019, the p etitioners submitted their opti o for revisio n of pension and the amount dep o sited by some of petitioners w a s credited b a ck to their saving bank as discernible from order dat e d 04.10.2019 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel further submits that petitione r s had also s e rved a legal notice dated 17. 0 8.2020 (Annexure P-8) and i n response t h ereof a reply was received i n forming the petitioners that t h e matter reg a rding grant of pension on hig h er wages is pending before t h e Hon’ble S u preme Court and the necessar y action will be taken as per t h e outcome o f petition. 3. On the other hand, learned c o unsel for respondents No.1 to 4 submits th a t the petitioners are pre-retiree s of year 2014 and prior to the i r

¶20

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

3

¶22

CWP-1807 3 -2020

¶23

retirement t hey have not admittedly exerc i sed their option to join the EPS Scheme an d the controversy involved in th e present case is squarely cover e d by the ju d gments rendered by this C o urt in CWP-35154-2024 and connected cases , titled as Om Parkash and others Versus Union of India and others, decided on 24.09.2025 and CWP-32035-2025, titled as Ram Nath and others Versus Union of India and others , decided on 30.10.202 5 . The releva n t portion thereof reads as under:-

¶24

4. “Having heard the le a rned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the petitioners in the present case retired befo r e 01.09.2014 without exercisi n g the stipulated option und e r paragraph 11(3). The law i n this regard is no longer r e s integra and has been settled b y this Court and Hon’ble Ap e x Court in ‘Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs. Sunil Kumar B’ 2022 INSC 1171 and ‘Powergrid Retired Employees’ Association (Prea) Vs. Union of India’ Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).97-2025.

¶25

5. In view of the di s cussion above, the present ci v il writ petition is hereby dismiss e d in terms of Om Parkash’s ca s e (supra).”

¶26

Moreover, the judgment pass e d by this Court in Ram Nath’s case (supra), has also been upheld by a D ivision Bench of this Court i n LPA-3764-2025 , titled as Ram Nath and others Versus Union of India and others , dec i ded on 24.12.2025.

¶27

In view of the above facts a n d circumstances of the case, t h e present pet i tion is hereby dismissed in ter m s of Om Parkash’s case (supra ) , so also, the pending application(s), if any.

¶28

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE

¶29

January 28, 2026 P.C Whether speaking/reaso n ed. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No

¶30

PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sukhjit Singh Chahal and Ors. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhjit Singh Chahal and Ors. v. Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parkasho Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Ors.

Hari Singh Vs Pspcl and Ors.

Rameshwar Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Jagmati Jain Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mahavir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sital Ram Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Other