Sunkara Nageswara Rao, vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 5472 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 5472 AP
Judgement Date : 15 November, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Sunkara Nageswara Rao, vs The Union Of India on 15 November, 2023

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NIMMAGADDA VENKATESWARLU

                WRIT PETITION No.15620 OF 2020
 ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:

"Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No 3 in not refixing of the pension at Rs 2 770/ of the Petitioner even less than contribution amount taking into consideration minimum salary under the scheme and not enhancing the said pension basing on the higher salary as per the Judgment delivered by the Honble Supreme Court in SLP No 33032/33033 of 2015 and on the basis of the contributions of the actual wages under Employees Pension Scheme 1995 as illegal arbitrary untenable unsustainable against the law as well as principles of Natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to enhance the pension of the petitioner taking into consideration his enhancement of the salary as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in SLP No 33032/33033 of 2015"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the

petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor in the 4th

respondent organization on 05.12.1989 at Guntur-2 Depot. He was

subsequently promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk and finally retired

as Assistant Depot Clerk at Mangalagiri of the 4th respondent. After

serving for 27 years in the said organization, the petitioner retired

on 31.05.2017, after attaining the age of superannuation.

3. Learned counsel submits that, the petitioner being the

member of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, contributed to

the said scheme along with the employer. Thereafter, on retirement

from the 4th respondent organization, the 3rd respondent fixed his

pension as Rs.2,770/- though his pension salary was fixed at

Rs.11,033/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the

respondents have not sanctioned higher pension. He submits that,

the petitioner has contributed higher amount for the said scheme

than the amount fixed. Though the petitioner has submitted

representation dated 03.07.2020 to the respondents petitioners, no

action has been taken by the respondents so far. He places reliance

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.C. Gupta vs.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident

Fund Organization1 and requests the Court to direct the

respondents to consider his representation dated 03.07.2020 to re-

fix the pension of the petitioner and pay the revised enhanced

pension basing on his enhanced salary.

5. Sri Balaji, learned counsel appearing for Employees

Provident Fund Organization would fairly submits that the

application made by the petitioner dated 03.07.2020 requesting for

sanction of higher pension and the same would be considered.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Standing Counsel for Employees Provident Fund Organization.

Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016 dated 04.10.2016

7. On perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner was

sanctioned meager amount of pension than the contributed

amount.

8. It would be profitable to refer to the ruling of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in R.C. Gupta vs. Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization

(referred supra), wherein it is held as follows:

"(v) The employees who had retired prior to 1st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the preamendment 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 1st 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.

9. In any view of the matter, in view of the submissions made

by both the counsel, without going into the merits of the case, to

resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents,

this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition with a

direction to the respondents - authorities to consider the

representation of the petitioner date 03.07.2020 for payment of

higher pension by following due procedure of law and by obtaining

instructions from the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Corporation (APSRTC) and the APSRTC is directed to forward the

amount paid by the petitioner to the Employees Provident Fund

Organization. The entire process shall be completed within a period

of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.