Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kedarnath Verma vs Union Of India on 4 September, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 4 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 8715 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
KEDARNATH VERMA S/O LATE SHRI HARIRAM
VERMA OCCUPATION: RETIRED SANKHYKIYA
ADHIKARI FROM DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL
BANK LTD SHIVPURI MAHARANAPRATAP COLONY
NEAR DR RAGHUWANSHI CLINIC SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AMIT CHAUHAN- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
EMPLOYEE'S PROVIDENT FUND AND PENSION
SANJAY COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR JAYENDRAGANJ
LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GENERAL MANAGER STATION OF M.P. DISTRICT
CO OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD COURT
ROAD SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R.K. GOYAL- ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND MAHIPAL SINGH-
ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have not challenged any specific order; but, are
aggrieved by non-grant of higher pension on the basis of contribution made
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Signing time: 05-Sep-23
2:06:47 PM
towards actual salary under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in this
petition is already settled by the decision of the Apex court in the matter of
the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar
B. & Ors., passed in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.8658-8659 of 2019
by which the Apex Court has disposed of the aforesaid S.L.P. by upholding
the 2014 Amendment carried out in the Pension Rules of 1995 and certain
directions have been issued in para 44 of the judgment with regard to
entitlement of higher pension. The directions as contained in the order of
the Apex Court is reproduced below:-
"(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 sub-paragraphs.
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Signing time: 05-Sep-23
2:06:47 PM
before 1st September 2014 stands crystallized 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 paragraph11(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) 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.
(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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Signing time: 05-Sep-23
2:06:47 PM
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.
(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) (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.
(x ) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.19171918 of 2018 and
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 619620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal
Nos. 1001310014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above
terms."
In view of the aforesaid guidelines, this petition is also disposed of
with the direction to the Competent Authority to decide the claim of the
petitioners in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of
Employees Provident fund Organization (supra).
Let the entire exercise be done within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.
CC as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Signing time: 05-Sep-23
2:06:47 PM
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: CHANDNI
NARWARIYA
Signing time: 05-Sep-23
2:06:47 PM
