1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 2678 of 2022
1. Ram Bhagat Goswami S/o K Ratiram Goswami Aged About 72 Years R/o
Jaiswal Chitra Mandir Gali, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Employees Provident Fund Organisation Through Commissioner, Regional
Office Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh Block - D, Scheme 32, Indira Gandhi
Commercial Complex, Pandri Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Zila Sahakri Kendriya Bank Maryadit Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, Through
Chief Executive Officer, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Banjare with Mr. Lov Kumar Lahare, Advocates For Respondent(E.P.F.) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 19.04.2022
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the action on the part of the respondents in reducing the revised pension that the petitioner was drawing for sometime now.
2. According to the petitioner, he was receiving the revised pension since 03.05.2019 and he received the revised pension up till January, 2022. However, without there being any formal order of reduction of pension served upon the petitioner, the respondents have unilaterally reduced the pension of the petitioner from the pension payable in the month of February, 2022 onwards. It is this action on the part of the respondents which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by a serious of decisions of this Court, the leading of which being WPS No. 1725/2022 (Prakash Bhalachandra Keshar v. Employees Provident Fund Organization & another) decided on 21.03.2022 and the present writ petition also deserves to be allowed on similar terms.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is a case where the decision on the basis of which the revised pension was paid to the petitioner has been subjected to review again before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore pending a decision before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Department thought it fit for reducing the pension, failing which it would be difficult on the part of the Department in recovering the same from the petitioner and similarly placed persons.
5. All said and done the decision of the revised pension was on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said judgment rendered in the case of "R.C. Gupta and others v. Regional PF Commissioner" reported in 2018 (14) SCC 809 has till date has not been set-aside, modified or recalled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore the said judgment still holds good. Mere entertaining of a review petition as such would not permit the respondent-EPF Department in reducing the pension, which otherwise was revised in terms of a direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of "R.C. Gupta" (supra).
6. Given the fact that this Court in a serious of decisions have already held that the action on the part of the EPF Department in reducing the pension without a final adjudication of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 3 the review petition to be bad in law. The said judgment would squarely cover the grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition also. The writ petition therefore as of now stands allowed. The EPF Department is directed to forthwith start paying the revised pension to the petitioner with the difference of the payment for the month of February, 2022 onwards till the outcome of the review petition by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the case may be or a decision is taken by the Department after giving a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7. The writ petition therefore to the aforesaid extent stands allowed and disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyoti