Himachal Pradesh High Court
Vanita Wilson vs The Auckland House School & Ors on 18 July, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2346 of 2018
alongwith connected matters
Decided on: 18th July, 2023
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CWP No.2346 of 2018
Vanita Wilson .....Petitioner
Versus
The Auckland House School & Ors. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CWP No.780 of 2018
Hariman .....Petitioner
r Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. CWP No.2594 of 2018
Rikhi Ram and others .....Petitioners
Versus
The Bilaspur Truck Operators Co-operative
Transport Society Ltd. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. CWP No.2621 of 2018
Narain Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. CWP No.2938 of 2018
Harish Gupta and others .....Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. CWP No.466 of 2019
Rajeev Kapoor and another .....Petitioners
Versus
The Lahaul Potato Growers Co-operative
.
Marketing and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. CWP No.607 of 2019
Indra Goel .....Petitioner
Versus
The Auckland House School & Ors. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. CWP No.670 of 2019
Bhagat Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. CWP No.671 of 2018
Veena .....Petitioner
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organization
and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. CWP No.1971 of 2019
Kewal Singh & Anr. .....Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. CWP No.2730 of 2019
Hariman .....Petitioner
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner .....Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. CWP No.2858 of 2019
Dr. P.K. Jamwal .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. CWP No.3090 of 2019
Dhani Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner .....Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. CWP No.3543 of 2019
Harvilas Behl .....Petitioner
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organisation .....Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. CWP No.3761 of 2019
Dr. Bhupendra Sharma .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. CWP No.3765 of 2019
Meher Chand Rana .....Petitioner
Versus
Chief Executive Officer, H.P. Khadi and
Village Industries Board and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. CWP No.4096 of 2019
Vijay Prakesh .....Petitioner
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner .....Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. CWP No.4098 of 2019
Ajit Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner .....Respondent
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
19. CWPOA No.7450 of 2019
Kirpal Singh Chauhan .....Petitioner
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. CWPOA No.7569 of 2019
Kamal Kishore .....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
Federation Limited and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. CWP No.212 of 2020
Sher Singh Chauhan .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. CWP No.867 of 2020
Sarwan Kumar and another .....Petitioners
Versus
The Bilaspur District Truck Operators Co-operative
Transport Society Ltd. & Anr. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. CWP No.3175 of 2020
Ajay Kapoor .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. CWP No.3784 of 2020
Duni Chand and others .....Petitioners
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organization
.
and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. CWP No.3881 of 2020
Dr. Sanjeev Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. CWP No.4086 of 2020
Vijay Kumar Bhardwaj .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. CWP No.4087 of 2020
Dharam Vir Pathania .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. CWP No.4338 of 2020
Kashmir Singh Thakur .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. CWP No.4342 of 2020
Dr. Jitendra Gandhi .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. CWP No.4727 of 2020
Anita Khanna .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31. CWP No.4984 of 2020
Madhu Parmar .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
32. CWP No.6129 of 2020
Sangeeta Sarswat .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. CWPOA No.5172 of 2020
Ghamanda Singh & another .....Petitioners
Versus
The H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
Federation Limited and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. CWPOA No.5176 of 2020
Sunil Malhotra & Anr. .....Petitioners
Versus
The H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
Federation Limited and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. CWPOA No.5216 of 2020
Satish Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
The H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
Federation Limited and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. CWPOA No.5232 of 2020
Ram Krishan .....Petitioner
Versus
The H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
.....Respondents
.
Federation Limited and another
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. CWPOA No.5292 of 2020
Prem Chand .....Petitioner
Versus
The H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
Federation Limited and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. CWPOA No.5306 of 2020
Savitri Devi .....Petitioner
Versus
The H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
Federation Limited and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. CWPOA No.5338 of 2020
Sher Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
The H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
Federation Limited and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. CWPOA No.5375 of 2020
Ram Nath Sharma .....Petitioner
Versus
Regional P.F. Commissioner & Ors. .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. CWPOA No.5411 of 2020
Tara Chand Verma .....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board
and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. CWPOA No.5415 of 2020
Uma Chauhan .....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board
and others .....Respondents
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. CWPOA No.5425 of 2020
Rajeshwari Devi .....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board
and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44. CWPOA No.5450 of 2020
Shiv Ram .....Petitioner
r Versus
H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board
and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. CWPOA No.5579 of 2020
Goverdhan Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board
and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. CWPOA No.5596 of 2020
Raj Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
The H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
Federation Limited and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. CWPOA No.6645 of 2020
Chet Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
The H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
Federation Limited and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. CWPOA No.6903 of 2020
Khem Chand .....Petitioner
Versus
The H.P. State Co-operative Milk Producers'
.
Federation Limited and another .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. CWP No.228 of 2021
Anjali Dewan .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. CWP No.304 of 2021
Anil Kapil .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. CWP No.320 of 2021
Amrit Chauhan .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
52. CWP No.468 of 2021
Balbir Singh Thakur .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53. CWP No.2472 of 2021
Vijay Abrol .....Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others .....Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Whether approved for reporting? 1
.
M/s Shrawan Dogra, Sunita Sharma, Ritta Goswami, Senior
Advocates with M/s Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Dhananjay
Sharma, Ranbir Singh, Lalita Sharma, Tejasvi Dogra, Harsh
Kalta, Arun Kaushal, Vikas Rajput, Komal Chaudhary, Vikas
Chauhan, Nitin Thakur, Aman Parth Sharma, Rakesh Kumar
Sharma, Shivank Singh Panta and Kush Sharma, Advocates,
for the petitioners in the respective petitions.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta &
Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocates General and
Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for the
respondents-State in the respective petitions.
Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Central Govt. Counsel, for the
respondent-UOI in the respective petitions.
Mr. Raman Sethi and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocates, for the
respondent-Provident Fund Organization in the respective
petitions.
Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev Sood,
Advocate, for the respondent-St. Bede's College in the
respective petitions.
Mr. Naresh K. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aman Sood,
Advocate, for respondent No.1-Auckland House School in CWP
Nos.2346 of 2018 and 607 of 2019.
Mr. Rishi Tandon, Advocate, for the respondent-H.P. Khadi
and Village Industries Board in the respective petitions.
Mr. Vijay Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent-HIMFED
in the respective petitions.
Mr. Yudhvir Singh Thakur and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma,
Advocates, for the respondent-MLSM College in the respective
petitions.
Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate, for the respondent-H.P. State
Co-operative Milk Producers' Federation Limited in the
respective petitions.
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order?
Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vasu Sood,
Advocate, for respondent No.3 in CWPOA No.5375 of 2020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
CWP No.1971 of 2019
.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
this petition be treated to have been filed only on behalf of
respondent No.2-Sh. Ashok Raj. His statement is noted.
Learned counsel further submitted that insofar as
petitioner No.1 is concerned, he may be permitted to file a
separate petition. Prayer is accepted. The petition shall be
deemed to have been filed only on behalf of petitioner No.2.
Petitioner No.1 is at liberty to avail remedy available to him
in law.
CWP Nos.2346, 780, 2594, 2621 & 2938 of
2018, CWP Nos.466, 607, 670, 671, 1971,
2730, 2858, 3090, 3543, 3761, 3765, 4096
& 4098 of 2019, CWP Nos.212, 867, 3175,
3784, 3881, 4086, 4087, 4338, 4342, 4727,
4984 & 6129 of 2020, CWP Nos.228, 304,
320, 468 & 2472 of 2021, CWPOA Nos.7450
& 7569 of 2019 and CWPOA Nos.5172,
5176, 5216, 5232, 5292, 5306, 5338, 5375,
5411, 5415, 5425, 5450, 5579, 5596, 6645
& 6903 of 2020
2. Learned counsel for the parties on both sides
are ad idem that the subject matter involved in all these
petitions and the reliefs claimed therein has been
adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special
Leave Petition (C) Nos.8658-8659 of 2019, titled as The
Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. Etc.
Versus Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. Etc. alongwith other
.
connected matters. Relevant portion from the judgment is
extracted hereinafter:-
"44 (i and ii) .................................
(iii) The employees who had exercised option under the
proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and
continued to be in service as on 1st September 2014,
will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph
11(4) of the pension scheme.
(iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise
option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph
11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014
Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under
paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their
right to exercise option before 1st September 2014
stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the
case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood
before 1st September 2014 did not provide for any cut
off date and thus those members shall be entitled to
exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the
scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option
shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre--
amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended
paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.
There was uncertainty as regards validity of the
post amendment scheme, which was quashed by the
aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all
the employees who did not exercise option but were
entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation
on cutoff date by the authorities, ought to be given a
further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise
option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under
these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further
period of four months. We are giving this direction in
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
Rest of the requirements as per the amended
provision shall be complied with.
(v) and (vi) .........................................
(vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate
of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary
exceeds Rs.15000/- per month as an additional
contribution under the amended scheme is held to be
ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the
reasons already explained above, we suspend
.
operation of this part of our order for a period of six
months. We do so to enable the authorities to make
adjustments in the scheme so that the additional
contribution can be generated from some other
legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which
could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the
employers. We are not speculating on what steps the
authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or
the framers of the scheme to make necessary
amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or
till such time any amendment is made, whichever is
earlier, the employees' contribution shall be as stop gap
measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis
of alteration to the scheme that may be made.
(ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in
the case of R.C. Gupta (supra) so far as interpretation of
the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre-amendment) pension
scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall
implement the directives contained in the said judgment
within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions
contained earlier in this paragraph."
3. All the petitioners in these petitions have
exercised their option after 01.09.2014. Learned counsel for
the respondent-Employees Provident Fund Organization
(EPFO) submitted that the date of exercising options in
terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court by the
concerned employees/petitioners was initially extended to
03.05.2023 and thereafter to 26.06.2023. Lastly, the date
was extended to 11.07.2023. It is not in dispute that all the
petitioners herein have exercised their options accordingly.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO
submit that based upon the options so exercised by the
petitioners, consequential action in accordance with law
.
and in light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court
shall be taken. Learned counsel further submit that
individual cases of the petitioners shall be scrutinized in
accordance with law and fresh orders in all such cases shall
be passed. Their statements are taken note of.
It is hoped and expected that while carrying out
the above exercise, the respondent-EPFO shall keep in
mind the time-limit framed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In
case the petitioners still have any grievances, they are at
liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
With the above observations, these petitions are
disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s),
if any.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
July 18, 2023 Judge
Mukesh
