Balkesh Singh vs Union Of India Through The Central ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3343 Jhar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P. (S) No.7501 of 2017
                                -----

1. Balkesh Singh

2. Ajit Kumar Mishra

3. Pravir Kumar Singh .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. Union of India through the Central Provident Fund Commissioner- I (Pension), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaiji Kama Palace, New Delhi.

2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I (Pension), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaiji Kama Palace, New Delhi.

3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhagirath Palace, Lalpur, Ranchi.

4. Steel Authority of India Limited, through its Chairman, Ispat Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro.

.......... Respondents.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Advocate For the UOI : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthy, Sr. S. C. For Res. Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate For Res. Nos.4 & 5 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate

-----

Order No.09 Date: 04.09.2023

1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant pecuniary benefits to the petitioners as per the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 by computing the pensionary contribution on the basis of actual pay received by them while in service and further to take appropriate step in that regard within a time frame. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to revise and enhance the pension paid to the petitioners by permitting them to make contributions, wherever necessary, under the said Scheme. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the letter dated 31st May, 2017 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I (Pension)- respondent no.2, whereby an advisory was issued for not adjusting the contribution of exempted establishment from provident fund account to the pension account.

2. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the present writ petition pertains to an exempted establishment i.e. Steel Authority of India Limited and the same may be disposed of in the light

of the order dated 29th March, 2023 passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.115 of 2021 with L.P.A. No.118 of 2021.

3. Considering the said submission, the present writ petition is disposed of in the light of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.115 of 2021 with L.P.A. No.118 of 2021. Accordingly, the respondent nos.1 to 3 are directed to take appropriate step in the light of the observations made in paragraph no.44, particularly sub-para (ii) of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Employees Provident Fund Organization & Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. Etc. [S.L.P.(C) No.8658-8659/2019].

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Sanjay/