Ram Lal Sharma vs Employees Provident Fund ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1744 Chatt

                                             1


                                                                             NAFR

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 2164 of 2022
           Ram Lal Sharma S/o Shri Ramavtar Sharma Aged About 66 Years
            R/o - G-6, Dairy Colony, Chhodara Nala, Near Big Bazar, Raipur
            (C.G.)
                                                                  ---- Petitioner
                                           Versus
          1. Employees Provident Fund Organization Through Commissioner,
             Regional Office Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh- Block, D, Scheme 32,
             Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri Raipur (C.G.)
          2. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation, Through Its
             Managing Director, Urla, Post - Bmy Charoda, District - Durg (C.G.)
                                                                ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 31/03/2022

1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated

25.02.2022 Annexure P-1 whereby the respondent no.1 has passed

an order revising the pension of petitioner and has also cancelled

the earlier revised PPO that was issued.

2. The whole issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the

petitioner is entitled for pension at the revised pay or the pre-

revised pay.

3. The petitioner was granted the benefit of revised pension w.e.f.

October, 2018 and by virtue of the revised pension the petitioner

was getting monthly pension of Rs.10,050/-. The said pension was

revised by respondent No.1 pursuant to an order that was passed

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Gupta & others

Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in S.L.P. No. 33032-

33033 of 2016 decided on 14.10.2016. Based upon the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Gupta (supra) the

EPF department had issued a circular for implementation of the

same vide order dated 23.03.2017. Based upon which the pension

payable to the petitioner stood revised after obtaining the additional

contribution from the petitioner to be deposited with the EPF

organization.

4. Subsequently, the EPF department itself has now approached the

Supreme Court for review of the judgment passed in the case of R.

C. Gupta (supra) which was filed by the EPF department on 13th

March, 2019 i.e. subsequent to the pension of petitioner getting

revised. The review petition is said to have been entertained by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter has been ordered to be

placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India. The review petition

thereafter has not been listed. There is no order as such passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the review petition permitting the EPF

department for restoring the pension as it stood prior to the filing of

the revision petition.

5. That in the light of the review petition having been entertained by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court the EPF department now has

unilaterally issued Annexure P-1 cancelling the revised PPO which

was issued in favour of petitioner and has reduced the monthly

pension to Rs. 2241/- from February, 2022 onwards whereas till

January, 2022 the petitioner had been receiving Rs.10,050/- as the

monthly pension. Thus, there is a substantial reduction in the

monthly pension vide the impugned order Annexure P-1.

6. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for

petitioner brought to the Court's notice an order in identical set of

facts from the Madhya Pradesh High Court where also a similar

action of the EPF department was assailed in WP No. 3841/2021 in

the case of Hemant Dhere Vs. The Employees Provident Fund

Organization & Others. The said writ petition was allowed and

disposed of vide order dated 08.06.2021. The Madhya Pradesh

High Court while allowing the writ petition held as under:

"In the present case, the respondent No.2/3 has given a complete go-bye to the principles of natural justice. So far as the contention of the respondents that the subject matter of the controversy is pending sub judice before the Supreme Court is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that this Court has not considered the merits of the case. The impugned order dated 21.1.2021 is being set aside on the ground of violation of natural justice. On one hand, the stand of the respondents is that the subject matter is pending sub judice, therefore, this Court should not decide the controversy and on the other hand, the respondents themselves are passing orders. It is for the respondents to consider their own stand.

Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other option but to quash the order dated 21.1.2021 passed by the respondent No.2 in Case No. EPF/RO/MP/GWL/Pension/PPO/Higher Pension/ 25852 with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the respondent No.3 personally. The said cost shall not be reimbursed to the respondent No.3 by the Department. The cost be deposited in the account of the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today.

The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 to take a final decision in the matter after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as by taking into consideration that the subject matter of the case is already sub judice before the Supreme Court.

With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of."

7. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that

the reason why the respondents seems to have passed the

impugned order is considering the financial implication that may

occur to the department in the event the review petition before the

Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Gupta (supra) stands allowed.

He submits that once the petitioner is granted pension at the

revised rate, considering the substantial hike in pension, it would be

difficult for the EPF department subsequently to recover this excess

payment or the difference of pension between pre-revised and

revised pension, in the event the review petition before the

Supreme Court stands allowed. On the contrary, if in the review

petition the EFP department is unsuccessful, the petitioner can

always be paid the difference amount at a latter stage also.

8. To counter the said submission, learned counsel for petitioner

submits that the same principle applies to the petitioner also. Since

the department has already implemented the revised pension and

the petitioner has been receiving the enhanced pension from

October, 2018 and the revised pension being paid by way of

implementation of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself,

as long as the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of R. C. Gupta (supra) is not recalled or held bad, the order

holds the field and the respondents are duty bound to comply the

same till the said order stands recalled. If at all if the review petition

is allowed, the Supreme Court itself would be the Court which could

decide the course of action to be taken by the EPF department as a

consequence of the review petition being allowed. Therefore, there

was no occasion for the EPF department to have issued the

impugned order reducing the revised pension which has a

substantial financial implication. Moreover, the contention of

petitioner is that the impugned order is also bad for the reason that

the same has been in utter violation of the principles of nature

justice. Inasmuch as the petitioner was never given an opportunity

of hearing before his pension was reduced from Rs. 10,050/- to Rs.

2241/- per month more particularly when the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Gupta (supra) still holds

the filed.

9. Given the said submissions by the learned counsel for the parties,

this Court fully endorses the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh

High Court in the case of Hemant Dhere (supra) and is also inclined

to apply the same in the instant case also for the reason firstly the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Gupta

(supra) is still holding the field and secondly, the impugned order

has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing.

10. For the aforesaid reasons the impugned order as of now deserves

to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed reserving the right of

respondent no.1 to take appropriate steps after the decision of the

Review Petition by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of R. C.

Gupta (supra) or after granting a fair and reasonable opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner as the case may be.

11. With the aforesaid observation the writ petition stands allowed.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved