Karnataka High Court

Ravikumar Kakade vs Union Of India on 4 August, 2023

Bench: K S Hemalekha

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

           WRIT PETITION No.9487/2020 (L-RES)

BETWEEN:

1)   RAVIKUMAR KAKADE,
     AGED 63 YEARS,
     S/O. KRISHNA RAO. K.T
     #416, 1ST CROSS, BHCS LAYOUT,
     UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
     BANGALORE - 560 061.
     EPF NO. PY/BOM/6787/840
     OLD PPO NO. BG/MRD/4732.

2)   A.M. SHIVAKUMAR,
     AGED 70 YEARS,
     S/O. A.R. MURIGENDRA GOUD,
     #241, ESHWARI, BEML, 3RD STAGE,
     RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
     BANGALORE - 560 098.
     EPF NO : PY/BOM/6787/9261
     OLD PPO NO. BG/MRD/3314.

3)   CHANDRASHEKAR .D
     AGED 67 YEARS,
     S/O. BYRAPPA,
     #32, "SHARADHA", 29TH CROSS,
     JAYANAGAR 7TH BLOCK,
     BANGALORE - 560 070.
     EPF NO : PY/BOM/6787/1073
     OLD PPO NO. KN/BNG/33158.

4)   K.A. RAJA GOPAL
     AGED 65 YEARS,
     S/O. LATE K.K. AIYANNA,
     #90/H, SHANTHINIKETHANA MAIN ROAD,
     2ND RIGHT CROSS, ARAKERE,
     BANGALORE - 560 076.
                               -2-
     EPF NO : PY/BOM/6787/555.
     OLD PPO NO. BG/MRD/2750.

5)   G. KRISHNA REDDY
     AGED 64 YEARS,
     S/O. GOPAL REDDY,
     #373,2ND MAIN, 5TH AVENUE,
     TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA,
     BANGALORE - 560 034.
     EPF NO : PY/BOM/6787/1281
     OLD PPO NO. BG/BNG/71560.

6)   NAGARAJU .K.N
     AGED 69 YEARS,
     S/O. K.N.NARAYANA RAO,,
     #43, 12TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK EAST,
     JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 011
     EPF NO :PY/BOM/6787/855
     OLD PPO NO. PY/BOM/2867.

7)   SHANMUKHA
     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
     S/O. LATE GANGAPPA,
     #172, SHIVANI GREENS LAYOUT,
     KADABGERE POST,
     NEAR MUTTURAYASWAMY TEMPLE,
     BANGALORE - 562 130.
     EPF NO :KN/BN/6787/1518
     OLD PPO NO. PY/PNY/22017.

8)   R. NAGABHUSHANAM
     AGED 65 YEARS,
     S/O. R.NANJUNDAPPA,
     57/, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
     BANGALORE - 560 004
     EPF NO :BG/BOM/11785/910
     OLD PPO NO. KN/BNG/65930.

9)   NARASIMHE GOWDA .V,
     AGED 64 YEARS,
     S/O. VYKUNTE GOWDA
     #762, 13TH B MAIN, 2ND STAGE,
     YALAHANKA NEW TOWN,
     BANGALORE - 560 064.
     EPF NO :BG/BNG/11785/929
                               -3-
      OLD PPO NO. BG/BNG/70980.

10)   SINGANNAGOWDA,
      AGED 64 YEARS,
      S/O. VAIKUNTEGOWDA,
      NO.1268, HIG, 7 B CROSS ROAD,
      RAMAKRISHNA ASHRAMA,
      YALAHANKA NEW TOWN, NORTH YALAHANKA,
      BANGALORE - 560 064.
      EPF NO :BG/BNG/9899/323
      OLD PPO NO. BG/BNG/70263.

11)   K.G. GANGAIAH
      AGED 64YEARS,
      S/O. GANGAIAH
      #790, GROUND FLOOR,
      9TH A MAIN, 8TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE,
      R.P.C. LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 104.
      EPF NO :PY/BOM/3713/2631.
      OLD PPO NO. PY/BOM/8552.

12)   PUTTASWAMY,
      AGED 64 YEARS,
      S/O. LINGE GOWDA
      #563/37 B, 6TH CROSS,
      MARUTHI EXTENSION, CHANNAPATNA,
      RAMANAGARA DIST. - 562 160.
      EPF NO :PY/BOM/3713/2704
      OLD PPO NO. BG/MRG/3682.

13)   SADASIVAIAH .B
      AGED 65 YEARS,
      S/O. BHADRAIAH
      #18, REVANNA SIDDEESWARA NILAYA
      3RD CROSS, MUNESWARA BLOCK,
      PARVATHI NAGARA,
      LAGGARE, BANGALORE- 560029.
      EPF NO :PY/BOM/3713/2400.
      OLD PPO NO. PY/PNY/20745.

14)   ESHWAR K.A.S.,
      AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
      S/O. LATE KALLABASAVAIAH,
      #1507, 1ST FLOOR, 29TH MAIN,
      'D' GROUP LAYOUT, SRIGANDADAKAVAL,
                               -4-
       BANGALORE - 5600 91.
       EPF NO :KN/3713/2508.
       OLD PPO NO. BG/MRD/10344 &
       PPO NO. PYBOM00004102 AT PF OFFICE,
       BOMMASANDRA.

15)    JAYARAMEGOWDA.K.
       AGED 64 YEARS,
       S/O. NINGAIAH
       #131, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
       NEW BDA LAYOUT, AVALAHALLI,
       GIRI NAGARA, BSK 3RD STAGE,
       BANGALORE - 560 085.
       EPF NO :PY/PNY/6739/305.
       OLD PPO NO. PY/PNY/24670.

16)    E. NARAYANA GOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
       S/O. ERE GOWDA,
       BASAVA BHAVANA,
       6TH CROSS, VEERBHADRA NAGARA,
       BASAVANAGARA (HAL),
       MANGALORE - 560 037.
       EPF NO:KN/6739/357
       OLD PPO NO. PY/PNY/26248.               ... PETITIONERS

(PETITIONERS ARE SENIOR CITIZENS AND
SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS ARE NOT CLAIMED)

(BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1)     UNION OF INDIA
       MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT,
       SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG,
       NEW DELHI - 110 001.
       REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

2)     EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
       (MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT,
       GOVERNMENT OF INDIA),
       BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN,
       14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
       NEW DELHI - 110 066.
                             -5-
     REPRESENTED BY
     THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND
     COMMISSIONER, (CPFC).

3)   THE ADDL. CENTRAL P.F. COMMISSIONER (HQ)
     ZONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA: GOA
     EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
     "KAVERI", BHAVISHYA NIDHI ENCLAVE
     HMT MAIN ROAD, JALAHALLI,
     BENGALURU - 560 013.

4)   THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER
     EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, BENGALURU-1
     BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN,
     #13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 560 025.

5)   THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER
     EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, KORAMANGALA
     "ANNAPOORNESHWARI COMPLEX",
     # 37/1, 6TH MAIN, HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
     SINGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 068.

6)   THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER
     EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE,
     RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR (MYSORE ROAD)
     #570, 26TH CROSS,
     IDEAL HOME CO-OP SOCIETY LAYOUT,
     RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 098.

7)   THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER
     EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, YELAHANKA
     # 2, MARUTHI COMPLEX,
     1ST "A" MAIN, HIG "A" SECTOR,
     YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
     BENGALURU - 560 064

8)   THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER
     EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, PEENYA
     #62, 3RD CROSS,
     INDUSTRIAL ESTATE SUBURB,
     YESHWANTHPUR, 2 ND STAGE,
     BENGALURU - 560 022.
                             -6-
9)    THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER
      EPFO, REGIONAL OFFICE, TUMKUR
      1ST FLOOR, BILWASHREE ARCADE,
      15TH CROSS, S.I.T. MAIN ROAD,
      TUMKUR- 572 103.

10)   THE KARNATAKA COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS'
      FEDERATION LIMITED
      KMF COMPLEX, M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD,
      HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027.
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      MANAGING DIRECTOR.

11)   MOTHER DAIRY,
      YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064
      REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

12)   RAJANKUNTE CATTLEFEED PLANT,
      RAJANUKUNTE, BANGALORE - 560 064.
      REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

13)   BENGALURU URBAN,
      BENGALURU RURAL AND
      RAMANAGARA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK
      PRODUCERS' SOCIETIES UNION LTD.,
      DR. M.H.MARI GOWDA ROAD,
      BANGALURU - 560 029.
      REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

14)   TUMKURU DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS'
      SOCIETIES UNION LTD.,
      B.H. ROAD, MALLASANDRA,
      TUMKUR - 572 102.
      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      MANAGING DIRECTOR.                    ... RESPONDENTS

(BY DSG FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR
    R-2 TO R-4, R-5, R-6, R-8, R-9;
    SRI B. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-10, R-11;
    SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-13;
    R-12 & R-14 ARE SERVED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FOLLOWING   ENDORSEMENT/COMMUNICATION      ISSUED   BY  THE
                                   -7-
RESPONDENT PF AUTHORITIES TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN TO THE
WRIT PETITION AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ULTRA VIRES THE
CONSTITUTION     OF    INDIA;  I.   ENDORSEMENT       BEARING
NO.BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/141      DATED     29.05.2019
ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER VIDE K AND
ETC.

      THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
11/07/2023 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The petitioners have sought for the following prayers:

"(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the following endorsement/communication issued by the Respondent PF Authorities to the Petitioners herein to the Writ Petition as being arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of India;

     i.     Endorsement                 bearing          No.
     BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/141                 dated

29.05.2019 issued by the 6th Respondent to the 1st Petitioner vide K.

     ii.    Endorsement                 bearing          No.
     BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/148                 dated

28.05.2019 issued by the 6th Respondent to the 4th Petitioner vide K1.

     iii.   Endorsement                 bearing          No.
     BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/145                 dated

28.05.2019 issued by the 6th Respondent to the 12th Petitioner vide K2.

iv.     Endorsement             bearing          No.
BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/147               dated

28.05.2019 issued by the 6th Respondent to the 14th Petitioner vide K3.

v.      Endorsement             bearing          No.
BG/MRD/RO/RRN/PENSION/2019-20/137               dated

29.05.2019 issued by the 6th Respondent to the 15th Petitioner vide K4.

vi. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/554 dated 03.09.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to the 1st Petitioner vide K5.

vii. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/552 dated 03.09.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to the 2nd Petitioner vide K6.

viii. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (3)/2019-2020/573 dated 18.09.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to the 3rd Petitioner vide K7.

ix. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/556 dated 03.09.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to the 4th Petitioner vide K8.

x. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/558 dated 03.09.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to the 5th Petitioner vide K9.

xi. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (3)/2019-2020/571 dated 18.09.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to the 6th Petitioner vide K10.

xii. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/526 dated 23.08.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to the 11th Petitioner vide K11.

xiii. Endorsement bearing No. KN/RO/KOR/A/C-92 (5)/2019-2020/538 dated 03.09.2019 issued by the 5th Respondent to the 12th Petitioner vide K12.

xiv.    Endorsement              bearing             No.
KN/PNY/PENSION/293/2019-20          dated     03.06.2019

issued by the 8th Respondent to the 7th Petitioner vide K13.

xv.     Endorsement              bearing             No.
KN/PNY/PENSION/293/2019-20          dated     03.06.2019

issued by the 8th Respondent to the 13th Petitioner vide K14.

xvi. Endorsement bearing No. BG/MRD/NAN/2019- 20 dated 10.06.2019 issued by the 6th Respondent to the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 15th Petitioner vide K15;

- 10 -

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondents No.1 to 9 to revise pension on higher salary on the basis of the contributions made by the Petitioners and their employers, to pay and continue to pay the revised monthly pension to the Petitioners considering inter alia the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (SLP No. 330332/2015) and also the circular issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 22.01.2019 to all Regional PF Commissioners at Annexure E and Annexure L to the Petition;

(c) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondents No.1 to 9 to pay arrears along with interest on the pension that had to be paid from the date that it fell due but is not yet paid, considering inter alia the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. (SLP No. 330332/2015) and also the circular issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 22.01.2019 to all Regional PF Commissioners at Annexure E and Annexure L to the Petition;

(d) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent PF Authorities to refund 1.16 % amount that was illegally collected from the

- 11 -

Petitioners along with interest considering inter alia the decision taken by the Respondent PF Authorities themselves as per Annexure- O.

(e) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent PF Authorities to pay interest on the contribution made by the Petitioners on the demand note issued by the Respondent PF Authorities at bank lending rate, as the Petitioners' money has been illegally held;

(f) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent No.1 to 9 to take into consideration, the arrears of salary, payscale revision, D.A., e.t.c., for the purpose of determination of pensionable salary and calculation of pension;

(g) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction directing the Respondent PF Authorities particularly Respondent No. 5 to disburse payment of pension to the Petitioner No.4 whose pension has been illegally stopped by the Respondent PF Authorities;

(h) Issue an appropriate writ, order, direction quashing the action of the 9th Respondent in re- crediting the difference of contribution amount with interest back to the account of the 16th Petitioner with Canara Bank, Tumkur Main Branch Vide Annexure B1 and as a consequence issue a writ in the nature of

- 12 -

mandamus to revise the pension on the basis of higher salary and pay revised pension considering interalia the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in R.C. Gupta and Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 7 Ors. (SLP No. 330332/2015) and also the circular issued by the 2nd Respondent dated 22.01.2019 to all Regional PF Commissioners at Annexure L to the Petition."

2. Heard Sri. Abhinav Ramanand .A, learned counsel

for the petitioners, Smt. Nandita Haldipur, learned counsel

for respondent Nos.2 to 9, Sri. B. Sudhakar, learned counsel

for respondent Nos.10 and 11 and Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned

counsel for respondent No.13.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

that even pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in

R.C. Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund

Organization and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809

[R.C. Gupta] vide order dated 04.10.2016, the respondents

are not granting the legitimate entitlements of pension to the

petitioners on higher salary.

- 13 -

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

would submit that during the pendency of this writ petition,

the Apex Court in the case of the Employees Provident

Fund Organization and Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar .B and

Ors. Etc., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1521 [Sunil

Kumar] has issued certain directions on the basis of which,

the pension amount has to be recalculated and the present

petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex

Court.

5. The Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's case stated

supra has issued certain directions, which reads as under:

"44. We accordingly hold and direct:

(i) The provisions contained in the notification no.

G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent subparagraphs.

- 14 -

(ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed.

(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

- 15 -

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) The employees who had retired prior to 1st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

- 16 -

(vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014.

(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

- 17 -

measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made.

(viii) We do not find any flaw in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary.

(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) (preamendment) 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.

(x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos.619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend

that prayer in the petition at (d) is covered as per the

directions of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's case,

whereas, prayer Nos.(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) are

not covered.

- 18 -

7. In prayer Nos.(a), (b), (c), (e), (f), (g) and (h),

the petitioners have sought a direction to the respondents to

take into consideration, the arrears of salary including D.A.

etc., for the purpose of determination of pensionable salary

and calculation of pension, has sought a direction to the

respondents to pay interest on the arrears of pension from

the date of retirement till the date of payment, the

entitlement of interest and the prayer sought at the said

paragraphs is nothing but recalculation of pensionable

amount and the same is squarely covered by the judgment

of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra,

wherein at paragraph No.36 it is held as under:

"36. The other aspect of the controversy involves changing the method of computation of the pensionable salary. We have given the points and counter points articulated by the contesting parties pertaining to this feature of the controversy earlier in this judgment. In our opinion, this change of methodology comes within the power of the Central Government to modify a scheme under Section 7 of the 1952 Act read with item 10 of the Schedule III to the Act as also paragraph 32 of the scheme. This

- 19 -

alteration of computation is ancillary to determination of scale of pension alongwith pensionary benefits and paragraph 32 of the pension scheme specifically authorises the Central Government to alter the rate of contribution payable under the Scheme or the scale of any benefit admissible under the scheme. There is a reasonable basis for effecting change in the computation methodology for determining pensionable salary and we do not find any illegality or unconstitutionality in effecting this amendment."

8. The Apex Court has held in the said para that a

change of methodology comes within the power of the

Central Government to modify a Scheme under Section 7 of

1952 Act read with item No.10 of Schedule III of the Act as

also para No.32 of the Pension Scheme.

9. In light of the same, it would be appropriate, if

this Court directs the petitioner/s to give representation/s to

the pension authorities to recalculate the pension in terms of

the directions of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar's case

stated supra.

- 20 -

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is