Chattisgarh High Court
Prabhu Prasad Sinha vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 27 April, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (S) No. 2939 of 2022
1. Prabhu Prasad Sinha S/o Late Jamuna Prasad Sinha Aged About 68
Years R/o Kedarpur , Bhatt, Marg , Gita Public School, Ambikapur, District
Sarguja Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
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 Panchyat Kendriya Bank Maryadit Ambikapur Chhattisgarh, Through
Chief Executive Officer, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh.
---Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Lov Kumar Lahre, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 : Shri Anil S Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2 : Shri Hariom Rai, Advocate under
instructions of Shri Jitendra Shrivastava,
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
27.04.2022
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
10.01.2019 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.
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 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
inder
