Ramadhin Sinha vs Employees Provident Fund ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3213 Chatt

                                     1

                                                                      NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                    Writ Petition (S) No. 3155 of 2022

     Ramadhin Sinha S/o Mehtar Ram Sinha, Aged About 73 Years, R/o
     Jain Krishi Seva Kendra, Collectorate Road, Nagar Palika Com.,
     Kanker (North Bastar), District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh

                                                              ---- Petitioner

                                  Versus

  1. Employees Provident Fund Organization Through Commissioner,
     Regional Office- Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- Block- D, Scheme 32,
     Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

  2. Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur
     Chhattisgarh, Through Chief Executive Officer, Jagdalpur, District :
     Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh

                                                          ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent no.1 : Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocate For Respondent no.2 : Mr. P. N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 04.05.2022

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.

17.08.2018 and by virtue of the revised pension the petitioner was

getting monthly pension of Rs.2169/-. 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.1531/-

from February, 2022 onwards whereas till January, 2022 the

petitioner had been receiving Rs.2169/- 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 August,

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. 2169/- to Rs.1531/- 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 Khatai