Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ishwar Singh And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 March, 2025
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Reserved on: 18.03.2025
Pronounced on: 28.03.2025
Sr. No. Case Number Title of the case
1. CWP-14622-2023 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
PENSIONERS WELFARE
ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND ORS
2. CWP-1714-2015 EMPLOYEES JOINT ACTION AND
ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
3. CWP-18073-2015 TARSEM CHAND & ORS Vs UNION
OF INDIA & ORS
4. CWP-20625-2016 AMARJIT SINGH Vs UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS.
5. CWP-37894-2018 PARMJEET SINGH AND OTHERS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
6. CWP-29491-2018 JARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
7. CWP-33493-2018 SEWA SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND ORS
8. CWP-22944-2017 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
RETIRED EMPLOYEES WELFARE
ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS
9. CWP-28716-2019 NARESH PAL AND ORS Vs STATE
OF HARYANA AND ORS
10. CWP-34412-2019 SUSHANT KUMAR MITTAL AND
ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
11. CWP-34287-2019 MAHABIR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
12. CWP-20371-2023 KALYAN SINGH GULERIA AND
ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
13. CWP-20145-2023 KARNAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
14. CWP-25246-2023 SUNIL JAND AND ORS Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS
15. CWP-5764-2024 RAMESH GAUR Vs EMPLOYEE
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
AND OTHERS
1 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -2-
16. CWP-29117-2023 ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Vs
EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION AND OTHERS
17. CWP-24628-2023 KISHAN SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND ORS.
18. CWP-17710-2023 EPF PENSIONERS WELFARE
ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND ORS
19. CWP-18442-2023 SHASHI PRABHA AND OTHERS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
20. CWP-18564-2023 MANGA RAM Vs EMPLOYEE
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
AND ORS.
21. CWP-18524-2023 RATI RAM AND ANOTHER Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
22. CWP-20003-2023 RAKESH WALIA Vs EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
AND ORS
23. CWP-2834-2024 KISHAN SINGH AND ORS Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND ORS
24. CWP-4899-2024 EPF PENSIONERS WELFARE
ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS
25. CWP-12647-2023 SANTOSH GUPTA Vs UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
26. CWP-20198-2023 MANMOHAN WALIA AND OTHERS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
27. CWP-10171-2024 RAVITA SODHI Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS
28. CWP-15151-2023 SATISH KUMAR ARORA AND ORS.
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
29. CWP-689-2024 BASU RAM AND ANR. Vs UNION OF
INDIA AND ORS.
30. CWP-18574-2023 SOM PARKASH AND ANR. Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
31. CWP-6179-2024 JAGTAR SINGH AND ANR Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
32. CWP-22425-2023 SUKHCHAIN SINGH DHILLON Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
33. CWP-11452-2023 KRISHAN GOPAL SAINI AND ORS
Vs EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION AND ORS
2 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -3-
34. CWP-19088-2023 CHAMPAT RAI PANESAR AND
OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
35. CWP-14235-2023 BALDEV SINGH AND ORS. Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
36. CWP-21183-2023 ISHWAR DAYAL AGGARWAL Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
37. CWP-14373-2023 BIHARI LAL BANSAL AND OTHERS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
38. CWP-1659-2024 NARAIN DASS SHARMA Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND ORS
39. CWP-19105-2023 PARDIP KAPOOR Vs UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
40. CWP-23162-2023 MANOHAR LAL VERMA Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS
41. CWP-1589-2024 BALBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
42. CWP-19209-2023 DEEPAK KUMAR PAHUJA Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
43. CWP-22354-2023 ASHOK MEHTA Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS
44. CWP-19390-2023 SANDHYA RANI Vs UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
45. CWP-1589-2025 BIRMATI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
46. CWP-18756-2011 EMPLOYEES JOINT COMMITTEE &
ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
47. CWP-23162-2024 SUDARSHAN DEVI Vs EMPLOYEE
PROVIDENT FUND ORG. AND
OTHERS
48. CWP-30126-2024 DR. RAJ KRISHAN GUPTA Vs
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANISATION AND ANR
49. CWP-11997-2024 SUKHDEV SINGH AND OTHERS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
50. CWP-10910-2024 GURDEV SINGH AND OTHERS Vs
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANISATION AND ANOTHER
51. CWP-7560-2024 RAKESH KUMAR NANGIA Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
52. CWP-30131-2024 RAM JANAM PANDEY Vs
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANISATION AND ANR
3 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -4-
53. CWP-12132-2024 SAVITA VERMA Vs UOI AND
OTHERS
54. CWP-19248-2024 GURDAS RAM Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS
55. CWP-13560-2024 CHANCHAL BEHL Vs EMPLOYEE
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
AND ORS
56. CWP-33980-2024 HARI SINGH CHAUHAN AND
OTHERS Vs EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
AND ANOTHER
57. CWP-11646-2017 NAVTEJ KUMAR & ORS Vs UNION
OF INDIA & ORS
58. CWP-9316-2017 BALJIT SINGH AND ORS Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND ORS
59. CWP-7955-2019 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OHTERS
60. CWP-3329-2017 GURSKANDER SINGH & OTHERS
Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
61. CWP-10049-2017 PARLAD RAI AND ORS Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND ORS
62. CWP-25445-2016 CHARANJIT SINGH GILL AND ORS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
63. CWP-15809-2017 YOGINDER SINGH AND ORS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
64. CWP-25528-2016 VARINDER KUMAR & ORS. Vs
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
65. CWP-6660-2017 BALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
66. CWP-9796-2018 SIRSA DISTRICT CENTRAL COOP.
BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS
67. CWP-3138-2020 RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
68. CWP-31356-2019 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
69. CWP-3139-2020 ISHWAR CHAND AND ORS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
70. CWP-838-2020 BALBIR SINGH DHULL AND
OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
71. CWP-18546-2012 KALA SINGH & PRS Vs UNION OF
INDIA & ORS
4 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -5-
72. CWP-3158-2020 KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
73. CWP-2394-2020 ISHWAR SINGH AND ORS Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND ORS
74. CWP-907-2020 AMBALA CENTRAL COOPERATIVE
BANK LTD Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS
75. CWP-32023-2019 KULWANT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
76. CWP-3069-2020 THE PANCHKULA CENTRAL
COOPERATIVE BANK LTD RETIRED
EMPLOYEES FEDERATION,
PANCHKULA Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS
77. CWP-2995-2020 KULVINDER SINGH AND ORS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
78. CWP-650-2021 ANUP SINGH AND OTHERS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
79. CWP-21631-2020 RAM KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
80. CWP-1468-2021 RAJENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
81. CWP-1491-2021 DHANPAT SHARMA AND OTHERS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
82. CWP-26928-2022 AMI CHAND AND OTHERS Vs
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
83. CWP-15625-2022 NIRMAIL SINGH Vs PUNJAB WATER
RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD AND OTHERS
84. CWP-5058-2018 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
RETIRED EMPLOYEES WELFARE
ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA
AND ORS
85. CWP-21320-2017 KAKA SINGH AND ORS Vs STATE
OF PUNJAB & ANR
86. CWP-2945-2021 RAJINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
87. CWP-4075-2021 KULWANT SINGH AND ANR Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
88. CWP-21690-2020 RISHI RAM AND OTHERS Vs UNION
OF INIDA AND OTHERS
89. CWP-4072-2021 SUNDER DASS AND ORS Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND ORS
5 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -6-
90. CWP-562-2021 SHREE BHAGWAN TYAGI AND
OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
91. CWP-498-2021 AMAR JEET TAKKAR AND OTHERS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
92. CWP-1277-2021 KISHAN CHAND AND OTHERS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
93. CWP-1505-2021 RAM KUMAR AND ORS Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS
94. CWP-9362-2023 SUSHIL SINGLA Vs CENTRAL
PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER AND ORS.
95. CWP-10977-2023 CHAMAN LAL BANSAL AND
OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
96. CWP-13838-2023 ASHOK MADAAN AND ORS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
97. CWP-13930-2023 SHIV KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
98. CWP-12584-2023 BIR BHAN VERMA AND OTHERS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
99. CWP-12871-2023 SHAKTI SHARAN GAUTAM AND
ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
100. CWP-14649-2023 SHYAM KUMAR KALIA AND
OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
101. CWP-14346-2023 KARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
102. CWP-13063-2023 ASHOK GUPTA AND ORS. Vs UNION
OF INIDA AND OTHERS
103. CWP-14270-2023 RATTAN SINGH SAINI AND
OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
104. CWP-13145-2023 SEWA SINGH ARYA AND OTHERS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
105. CWP-14672-2023 SURINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
106. CWP-14258-2023 YASWANT SINGH AND OTHERS Vs
EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND
ORGANIZATION AND OTHERS
107. CWP-14609-2023 BALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS
Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
6 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -7-
108. CWP-14725-2023 TEJ PAL AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
109. CWP-15376-2023 AJAY GUPTA AND ORS Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND ORS
110. CWP-15053-2023 ISHWAR CHANDER Vs UNION OF
INDIA AND OTHERS
111. CWP-15101-2023 PUNSUP RETIRED MULAZAM
WELFARE ASSOCIATION PUNJAB
AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
ORS.
112. CWP-17169-2023 NARINDER KUMAR BOGRA AND
OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
113. CWP-15895-2023 RAVINDER KUMAR AND ORS Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
114. CWP-15979-2023 JAGAT PAL AND OTHERS Vs UNION
OF INDIA AND OTHERS
115. CWP-15417-2023 RANJIT SINGH CHEEMA AND
OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
116. CWP-16485-2023 GURDIP KUMAR SHARMA Vs
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
117. CWP-17071-2023 JANG BAHADUR SINGH AND
OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
118. CWP-17572-2023 CHANDER MOHAN SHARMA AND
ANOTHER Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
119. CWP-16599-2023 SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA AND
ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Argued by: Mr. Jaiveer Yadav, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Parul, Advocate and
Mr. Aman Gautam, Advocate and
Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-25445-2016, CWP-10049-2017 &
CWP-29491-2018.
Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gauravjit S. Patwalia, Advocate,
Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate and
Ms.Lagan Kaur Sidhu, Advocate
7 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -8-
Ms. Sehar Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-14622-2023 and CWP-17572-2023.
Mr. Jagdeep Jaswar, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-14258-2023 & CWP-18756-2011.
Mr. Amit Sharma (Kanav), Advocate,
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Deepankur Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-18546-2012, CWP-7955-2019, CWP-25445-
2016, CWP-14235-2023, CWP-14346-2023, CWP-
4725-2023 and CWP-12584-2023.
Ms. Anusha Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP-1659-2024.
Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP-14258-2023 and CWP-20003-2023.
(through video conferencing)
Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-16599 and 19209 of 2023.
Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-26928-2022, CWP-3329-2017,
CWP-21320-2017 and CWP-15417-2023.
Mr. Abhijeet Singh Rawaley, Advocate for the
petitioners in CWP-19390, 17710 & 19105 - 2023, and
CWP-4899, 7560 & 33980-2024.
Mr. D.S. Malik, Advocate and
Mr. Ved Priay Malik, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-28716-2019.
Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-23162-2023.
Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Umang Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners in
CM-10360-61-CWP-2024 in
CWP-1468-2021, CM-1583-84-CWP-2024
in CWP-13930-2023, CWP-34412-2019,
CWP-21631 and 21690-2020, CWP-498, 1277, 650,
562, 1505, 1491 of 2021, CWP-13930, 19088,
20198, 20371, 13838 of 2023.
Mr. Ravi Malik, Advocate and
Mr. Abhishek Pundir, Advocate for
8 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -9-
the petitioners in CWP-1589-2024.
Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate and
Ms. Neha Rana, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-15376, 10977, 12647, 18574 and 22354 of
2023.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-907-2019 and CWP-3069-2020.
Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP No.11452 of 2023.
Ms. Paramjit Kaur Deol, Advocate for petitioner
in CWP-24628-2023 for respondent No. 4 in
CWP-14609-2023.
Mr. Arvind Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-22425-2023.
Mr. Harsimranpreet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-1271-2023.
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate,
Mr. Gurpaint Singh, Advocate and
Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for petitioners
in CWP-21183-2023.
Mr. Sunil Toni, Advocate,
Ms. Ekta Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Karanveer Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP No.17071 of 2023.
Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-33493-2018.
Mr. Rajdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate for the
petitioner in CWP No.16485 of 2023.
Mr. Roopse Sharma, Advocate for
Mr. Anil Kumar Lamdharia, Advocate for the petitioner
with Ms. Kanta Lamdharia, Advocate,
Ms.Roopse Sharma, Advocate,
Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur, Advocate and
Mr. Kamal Kumar, Advocate
in CWP-15151-2023.
Mr. Parveen, Advocate (through video conferencing)
Dr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner
9 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -10-
in CWP No.13145, 14649, 17169, 20145 of 2023 & 689 of
2024.
Mr. Tahaf Bains, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP No.14609 of 2023.
Mr. Nikhil Batta, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP Nos. 25528-2016 & 11646-2017.
Mr. Kanwar Singh Khera, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP Nos.18524, 14672, 15895 and 13145 of 2023.
Mr. Vineet Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Chanderpal Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP No.9796 of 2018.
Ms. Urvashi Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-18442-2023, CWP-2834, 6179, 10171, 11997,
12132-2024.
Mr. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Advocate and
Mr. Inderjeet Sihag, Advocate for the petitioners in
CWP-12871-2023 and CWP-22425-2023.
Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CWP-838-2020.
Mr. Kulwant Singh Boparai, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-18756-2011, CWP-37894-2018, 15101-2023,
13838-2023 and CWP-1714-2015.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in
CWP-6660-2017 and CWP-9316-2017.
Mr. Shubham Makkar, Advocate for
Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in
CWP-22944-2017, 5058-2018, 7955 & 31356-2019.
Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-34287-2019.
Mr. Mahabir Singh Tanwar, Advocate for
Mr. A.S. Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner(s)in
CWP-2394-2020.
Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner in
CWP-15809-2017.
Mr. Surinder Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners in
10 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -11-
CWP-18564, 29117 -2023 and
CWP-5764, 13560, 23162 -2024.
Mr. Narnder Pal Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner in
CWP-15053-2023.
Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate and
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-32023-2019.
Mr. Himanshu Chhabra, Advocate for the
applicant/petitioner in CWP-2945, 4072, 4075-2021.
Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s) in
CWP-13063-2023.
Mr. Arihant Goyal, Senior Panel Counsel
for respondent-UOI in CWP-10977-2023.
Mr. Vikram Bajaj, Senior Panel Counsel
for respondent No.1
in CWP-6179 & 12132 of 2024.
Mr. Sandeep Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel for
respondent-UOI in CWP No.15809 of 2017.
Mr. Paul S. Saini, Senior Panel Counsel,
for respondent-UOI
in CWP-689-2024.
Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Sr. Panel Counsel for
respondent-UOI in CWP-13063-2023.
Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent-UOI
in CWP-25445-2016 & CWP-10049-2017.
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate and
Ms. Manvi Arora, Advocate for
respondent-SBI.
Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate and
Mr. Mayank Bansal, Advocate for PUNSUP
in CWP No.6660 of 2017.
Ms. Mona Yadav, Advocate and
Mr. R.S. Kalra, Advocate for respondent-PUNSUP in
CWP-2834-2024 and CWP-11997-2024.
Ms. Sunint Kaur, Advocate for respondent-PUNSUP
11 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -12-
in CWP-18442, 9362 of 2023 & 6179 of 2024.
Mr. Vishal Mehta, Advocate for respondent-PUNSUP in
CWP-15101-2023.
Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 to 8
in CWP-10049-2017 and for respondent No.3 in
CWP-11452-2023.
Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4
in CWP-7560-2024.
Mr. Balwinder Singh Sudan, Advocate
for respondent No.4 in CWP-14649-2023.
Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for respondent No.4
in CWP Nos.20371, 14258 and 19088 of 2023.
Mr. Himali Baweja, Advocate for
Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate and
Mr. Viney Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.4
in CWP-13063-2023.
Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocate and
Mr. Rajvir Singh Sihag, Advocates for
respondent No.5 in CWP-12132-2024.
Mr. K.S. Hissowal, Advocate for respondent No.4
in CWP-20145-2023 and for respondent No.5 in
CWP-17169-2023.
Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI.
Mr. Parvesh Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.6
in CWP-15809-2017.
Mr. Mahabir Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 5
in CWP-17071-2023.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate with
Mr. Vicky Chauhan, Advocate for respondent-HAFED in
CWP Nos.18564, 16599, 14270, 12584, 15979,
15053, 29117 and 23162 of 2023.
Mr. Raj Partap Singh Brar, Advocate for
respondent No.6 in CWP-17572-2023.
Ms. Mansi, Advocate for
Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate
for respondent No.7 in CWP Nos.13838 of 2023
12 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -13-
& 23162 of 2024.
Mr. Aman Sharma and Mr. Chirag Suri, Advocates
for the respondent in CWP Nos.18756 of 2011,
1714, 18073 of 2015, 20625 of 2016, 37894 of 2018 and
CWP-15625-2022.
Mr. Sumer Singh Brar, Advocate for respondent No.4 in
CWP-9316-2017.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for respondents in
CWP-20198-2023 and respondent No.4
in CWP-1589-2024.
Mr. Siddharth, Advocate (through video conferencing)
with Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate and
Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate
for EPFO (in all cases)
Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate and
Ms. Jyotnoor Kaur Sethi, Advocate for respondent No.4
in CWP-17169-2023 & CWP-13145- 2023.
Mr. Arvind Seth, Sr. Panel Counsel
for respondent No.3-UOI
in CWP No.34287 of 2019.
Mr. Jagjot S. Lalli, Sr. Panel Counsel for UOI in
CWPs-21690, 21631, 2394 of 2020
and 650, 4072, 4075, 1277 of 2021.
Mr. Jagjot S. Lalli, Deputy Solicitor General of India
in CWP-18546-2012, CWP-25528-2016,
CWP-34412-2019, CWP-37894-2018
and CWP-7955-2019.
Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5-FCI
in CWP-7955-2019, CWP-5058-2018
and CWP-31356-2019.
Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent-FCI in
CWP-11646-2017.
Mr. Rahul Narwal, Advocate
for Mr. Barjesh Mittal, Advocate
for respondent No.5 in CWP-17572 & for respondent No.4
in CWP-14622-2023.
Mr. S.K. Rattan, Advocate for respondent No.1
in CWP-19248-2024.
13 of 46
::: Downloaded on - 12-04-2025 05:31:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -14-
Mr. Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate
and Mr. Gaurav Jagota, Advocate for respondent No.4
in CWP-19248- 2024.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. AG, Haryana,
Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana,
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and
Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana.
Dr. Dharminder Singh Lamba, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Since all the writ petitions herein involve common
questions of facts and law, therefore, they are amenable to be decided
through a common order.
2. For the sake of brevity, the facts of CWP-14622-2023 are
taken here for deciding the instant controversy.
Factual Backdrop of the case.
3. The Employees Provident Fund and Misc Provisions Act,
1952 (hereinafter for short called as the 1952 Act) was enacted on
04.03.1952. Thereafter, on 02.09.1952, the Employees Provident Fund
Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter for short called as EPF Scheme, 1952 ) was
notified by the Central Government in accordance with Section 5 of the
1952 Act, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter.
"5. Employees' Provident Fund Schemes - [(1)] The
Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame
a Scheme to be called the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme for the
establishment of Provident Funds under this Act for employees or for
any class of employees and specify the establishments or class of
establishments to which the said Scheme shall apply and there shall be
established, as soon as may be after the framing of the Scheme, a Fund
in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Scheme.
14 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -15-
4. Further, as per section 6 of the 1952 Act, the employer is
bound to deduct 10/12% (initially it was only 6.25%) from the
salary/wages of the employees and contribute equal amount from his
own pocket and deposit the same with the EPF Department under EPF
Scheme 1952, by 15th of every month.
5. Further, Para 2 (f) of the EPF Scheme, 1952 defines an
'Excluded Employee' and also provides the wage ceiling limit, para
whereof, becomes extracted hereinafter.
2. Definitions - In this Scheme, unless the context
otherwise requires -
(a) to (e) - xxxx
(f) "excluded employee" means
[(i) an employee who, having been a member of
the Fund, withdrew the full amount of his accumulations in the Fund
under clause (a) or (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 69;]
[(ii) an employee whose pay at the time he is
otherwise entitled to become a member of the Fund, exceeds fifteen
thousand rupees per month.
6. As per the said para, an 'excluded employee' means an
employee whose pay at the time, when he is otherwise entitled to
become a member of the Fund, exceeds Fifteen thousand rupees per
month. As per para 2(f), only the employees getting the salary/wages
upto the wage ceiling (i.e. Rs. 15000/-) are mandatorily required and
entitled to be enrolled as EPF Members (may be called as Mandatory
Members) and the employees whose salary exceeds the wage ceiling
limit of Rs.15000/- are excluded from the purview of the Act (may be
called option Members).
15 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -16-
7. Thereafter, Clause (6) was added in Para 26 of EPFS, 1952,
wherebys, mandatory joint options in writing both by the employer,
and, the employee to the authority concerned, thus could be exercised,
wherebys, the 'excluded employee', who was getting salary/wages
above the wage ceiling limit could be enrolled in the EPF Scheme,
1952 and/or the contribution on the basis of the actual salary drawn by
the employee concerned, thus was also allowed.
8. Thereafter, the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995
(hereinafter for short called as the EPS, 1995) was introduced on
16.11.1995, thus in terms of Section 6A of the 1952 Act, provisions
whereof become extracted hereinafter.
[6A. Employees' Pension Scheme.--
(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, frame a scheme to be called the Employees' Pension
Scheme for the purpose of providing for--
(a) superannuation pension, retiring pension or permanent
total disablement pension to the employees of any establishment or
class of establishments to which this Act applies; and
(b) widow or widower's pension, children pension or
orphan pension payable to the beneficiaries of such employees.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6, there
shall be established, as soon as may be after framing of the Pension
Scheme, a Pension Fund into which there shall be paid, from time to
time, in respect of every employee who is a member of the Pension
Scheme,--
(a) such sums from the employer's contribution under
section 6, not exceeding eight and one-third per cent, of the basic
wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance, if any, of the
concerned employees, as may be specified in the Pension Scheme;
(b) such sums as are payable by the employers of exempted
establishments under sub-section (6) of section 17;
(c) the net assets of the Employees' Family Pension Fund
as on the date of the establishment of the Pension Fund;
(d) such sums as the Central Government may, after due
appropriation by Parliament by law in this behalf, specify.
(3) to (7) xxxx
16 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -17-
9. Moreover, it is relevant to allude to para 3(2) of the EPS,
1995, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter.
3. Employees' Pension Fund -
(1) From and out of the contributions payable by the
employer in each month under Section 6 of the Act or under the rules of
the Provident Fund of the establishment which is exempted either under
clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act or whose
employees are exempted under either paragraph 27 or paragraph 27-A
of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, a part of
contribution representing 8.33 per cent of the employees' pay shall be
remitted by the employer to the Employees' Pension Fund within 15
days of the close of every month by a spearate bank draft or cheque on
account of the Employees' Pension Fund contribution in such manner
as may be specified in this behalf by the Commissioner. The cost of the
remittance, if any, shall be borne by the employer.
(2) The Central Government shall also contribute at the
rate of 1.16 per cent of the pay of the members of the Employees'
Pension Scheme and credit the contribution to the Employees' Pension
Fund :
Provided that where the pay of the member exceeds
fifteen thousand rupees per month the contribution payable by the
employer and the Central Government be limited to the amount
payable on his pay of fifteen thousand rupees only."
10. As per Section 6A of the 1952 Act read with Para 3 (2) of
the EPS, 1995, it was provided that out of 12% Employer's
Contribution, 8.33% will be paid to the Pension fund. Further, as per
para 3(2) of the EPS, 1995, it was provided that the Central
Government will also pay 1.16% to pension fund. However, the proviso
to Para 3(2) (supra) stipulated that where the pay of the member, rather
exceeds the wage ceiling of Rs.6500/- (now Rs. 15000/-) per month,
therebys, the contribution payable by the employer and the central
government thus will be limited to the amount payable on his pay of
Rs.6500/- (now Rs. 15000/-).
11. In addition, para 11 (3) of EPS, 1995, categorically
provided that the maximum pensionable salary shall be limited to
17 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -18-
Rs.6500/-(now Rs. 15000 per month). The said para becomes extracted
hereinafter.
11. Determination of pensionable salary -
(1) xxxx
(2) xxxx
(3) The maximum pensionable salary shall be limited to
fifteen thousand rupees per month. "
12. Thereafter, on 16.03.1996, proviso to para 11(3) of the
EPS, 1995 was added and option was provided in the Pension Scheme
to contribute on the basis of higher/actual wages in the Pension Fund.
However, that was also subject to joint options being submitted by the
employer and the employees under para 11 (3) but from the date of
commencement of the Pension Scheme or from the date the salary
exceeds the wage ceiling, whichever is later. Moreover, the said option
was yet made subject to the joint exercisings thereofs, thus by the
employer and employee, rather as envisaged under para 11 (3) but
within one year from 16.03.1996. The said proviso becomes extracted
hereinafter.
Provided that if at the option of the employer and
employee, contribution paid on salary exceeding rupees six thousand
and five hundred per month from the date of commencement of this
Scheme or from the date salary exceeds rupees six thousand and five
hundred whichever is later, and 8.33 per cent share of the employers
thereof is remitted into the Pension Fund, pensionable salary shall be
based on such higher salary.
13. Thereafter, the Central Government vide two
notification(s) of even date i.e. 22.08.2014, enhanced the wage ceiling
from Rs. 6500/- to Rs. 15,000/- in both the schemes, respectively in the
18 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -19-
EPF Scheme, 1952 and in the EPS, 1995 and also deleted the proviso to
para 11 (3) of the EPS, 1995. However, clause 11 (4) became inserted in
the EPS, 1995, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter.
[(4) The existing members as on the 1st day of
September, 2014, who at the option of the employer and employee, had
been contributing on salary exceeding six thousand and five hundred
rupees per month, may on a fresh option to be exercised jointly by the
employer and employee continue to contribute on salary exceeding
fifteen thousand rupees per month and the pensionable salary for the
existing members who prefer such fresh option shall be based on the
higher salary]:
Provided that the aforesaid members have to contribute at
the rate of 1.16 per cent on salary exceeding fifteen thousand rupees as
an additional contribution from and out of the contributions payable by
the employees for each month under the provisions of the Act or the
rules made thereunder:
Provided further that the fresh option shall be exercised by
the member within a period of six months from the 1st day of
September, 2014:
Provided also that the period specified in the second
proviso may, on sufficient cause being shown by the member, be
extended by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for a further
period not exceeding six months:
Provided also if no option is exercised by the member
within such period (including the extended period), it shall be deemed
that the member has not opted for contribution over wage ceiling and
the contributions to the Pension Fund made over the wage ceiling in
respect of the member shall be diverted to the Provident Fund account
of the member along with interest as declared under the Employees'
Provident Funds Scheme from time to time.
14. The said amendment came into effect from 01.09.2014.
The effect of the said amendment was that w.e.f. 01.09.2014, the
19 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -20-
enabling clause for joint option for higher contribution for pension
funds was deleted.
15. In the meantime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide verdict
dated 04.10.2016, made in case titled as R.C. Gupta and Others
Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees
Provident Fund Organization and Others, to which Civil Appeal
No. (S). 10013-10014 of 2016 became assigned, set aside the cut off
date which was fixed by the department.
16. The relevant paragraphs, as occur in the said judgment
enumerating the facts therein, become extracted hereinafter.
4. The appellant-employees on the eve of their retirement i.e.
sometime in the year 2005 took the plea that the proviso brought
in by the amendment of 1996 was not within their knowledge
and, therefore, they may be given the benefit thereof,
particularly, when the employer's contribution under the Act has
been on actual salary and not on the basis of ceiling limit of
either Rs.5,000/- or 6,500/- per month, as the case may be. This
plea was negatived by the Provident Fund Authority on the
ground that the proviso visualized a cut-off date for exercise of
option, namely, the date of commencement of Scheme or from the
date the salary exceeded the ceiling amount of Rs.5,000/- or
6,500/- per month, as may be. As the request of the appellant-
employees was subsequent to either of the said dates, the same
cannot be acceded to.
5. Aggrieved the appellant-employees moved the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge
decided the Writ petition in favour of the appellant-employees
making it clear that the decision would not serve as a precedent
for the future. The Division Bench reversed the said decision
upholding the view of the Provident Fund Authority that under
the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme there was a
cut-off date.
17. The relevant paragraphs, as occur in the said judgment
enumerating the conclusions made thereins, become extracted
hereinafter.
20 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -21-
7. Clause 11 (3) of the Pension Scheme is in the following
terms :
11. Determination of Pensionable Salary.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) The maximum pensionable salary shall be limited to
[rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500/-] per
month.
[Provided that if at the option of the employer and
employee, contribution paid on salary exceeding [rupees
six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500/-] per month from
the date of commencement of this Scheme or from the date
salary exceeds [rupees six thousand and five
hundred/Rs.6,500/-] whichever is later, and 8.33 per cent
share of the employers thereof is remitted into the Pension
Fund, pensionable salary shall be based on such higher
salary.]
8. Reading the proviso, we find that the reference to the date
of commencement of the Scheme or the date on which the salary
exceeds the ceiling limit are dates from which the option
exercised are to be reckoned with for calculation of pensionable
salary. The said dates are not cut-off dates to determine the
eligibility of the employer-employee to indicate their option
under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. A
somewhat similar view that has been taken by this Court in a
matter coming from the Kerala High Court, wherein the Special
Leave Petition (C) No.7074 of 2014 filed by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner was rejected by this Court by
order dated 31.03.2016. A beneficial Scheme, in our considered
view, ought not to be allowed to be defeated by reference to a
cut-off date, particularly, in a situation where (as in the present
case) the employer had deposited 12% of the actual salary and
not 12% of the ceiling limit of Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- per
month, as the case may be.
9. A further argument has been made on behalf of the
Provident Fund Commissioner that the appellant-employees had
already exercised their option under paragraph 26(6) of the
Employees' Provident Funds Scheme. Paragraph 26(6) is in the
following terms:
26. Classes of employees entitled and required to join the
fund xxx xxx xxx (6) Notwithstanding anything contained
in this paragraph, an officer not below the rank of an
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, on the joint
request in writing, of any employee of a factory or other
establishment to which this Scheme applies and his
employer, enroll such employee as a member or allow him
to contribute more than [six thousand five hundred
rupees] of his pay per month if he is already a member of
the fund and thereupon such employee shall be entitled to
the benefits and shall be subject to the conditions of the
fund, provided that the employer gives an undertaking in
21 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -22-
writing that he shall pay the administrative charges
payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in
respect of such employee].
10. We do not see how exercise of option under paragraph 26
of the Provident Fund Scheme can be construed to estop the
employees from exercising a similar option under paragraph
11(3). If both the employer and the employee opt for deposit
against the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, exercise of
option under paragraph 26 of the Provident Scheme is
inevitable. Exercise of the option under paragraph 26(6) is a
necessary precursor to the exercise of option under Clause
11(3). Exercise of such option, therefore, would not foreclose
the exercise of a further option under Clause 11(3) of the
Pension Scheme unless the circumstances warranting such
foreclosure are clearly indicated.
18. Thereafter, circular dated 23.03.2017 (Annexure P-3)
became issued in terms of the law laid down in R.C.Gupta's case
(supra) by respondent No. 2.
19. Further, another circular (Annexure P-4) became issued in
compliance with the verdict rendered in R.C.Gupta's case (supra),
whereins, in paragraph No. 2, it was specifically stated that if the
employee has contributed on his higher salary, then there is no necessity
qua any specific exercising of the joint option.
20. Thereafter, another verdict was made by the Apex Court in
case titled as Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Another
Vs. Sunil Kumar B. and Others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC
1521, whereins, the judgment made by the Apex Court in R.C.Gupta's
case (supra) was reiterated.
21. In terms of verdict made by the Apex Court in Sunil
Kumar B.'s case (supra) circulars dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure P-5),
dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P-6) and dated 20.02.2023 (Annexure P-7)
became issued, whereins, all employees were directed to again exercise
22 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -23-
option and in the meantime their pensions were reduced to the ceiling
limit.
22. The afore Annexures become impugned in the instant writ
petition bearing No. CWP-14622-2023 and other connected cases.
Submissions by the learned Counsel for the EPFO.
23. After the judgment dated 04.11.2022 made in Sunil
B.Kumar's case (supra), the department issued circular dated
29.12.2022 thus in compliance qua the directions passed thereins by the
Apex Court. Under the same Circular, the earlier circulars dated
23.03.2017 and dated 20.03.2021 were also superseded.
24. In fact under bona fide impression and inadvertent mistake
the department accepted the joint options of the employees under para
11(3) of the scheme after 01.09.2014 (2018-2019) and also their
pension became revised by mistake. They were however not entitled to
pension on higher wages. The grant of benefit of higher pension would
not only amount to payment being made without any legal right but
would also dent the provident fund which is meant and belongs only to
low salary employees.
25. The petitioners were in service and members of the
Employees Provident Fund Organization and were drawing salary in
excess of the statutory wage(s) limit, when the amendment was notified
by the Government in 1996, wherebys, they became allowed to exercise
the apposite joint option. However, the petitioner(s) never exercised
their option during their service period.
23 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -24-
26. It is further submitted here that the petitioner(s) cannot be
granted the benefit of joint options exercised under Proviso to Para
11(3) (which they filed in 2019) in the year 2024, which however
become already deleted w.e.f. 01.09.2014.
27. The first and foremost question which becomes generated,
is whether by judicial pronouncement, the High Court can make
operative, those substantive provisions of law/rules, which have already
been deleted from the scheme since 01.09.2014. Furthermore, whether
the provisions of law/rules which are now in existence, thus can be yet
acted upon, and whether any purported ill benefits becoming granted to
any pensioner thus after the apposite provision ceasing to be in
operation, thus requires whether the same can be ordered to be
recovered from the pensioners concerned. It is settled law that the Court
cannot interpret the statutory provision in such a manner which would
amount to legislation.
28. In case titled as 'Union of India & Anr. v. Deoki Nandan
Aggarwal', reported in AIR 1992 SC 96, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that:
"It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope
of the legislation..... The Court cannot rewrite, recast or
reframe the legislation for the very good reason that it has
no power to legislate. The power to legislate has not been
conferred on the Court.
29. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners are not
entitled to higher pension, as they retired before 01.09.2014 without
exercising the enjoined joint options nor their contribution(s) became
24 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -25-
ever deposited in the Pension Fund thus on the higher salary rather
throughout their service period.
Inferences of this Court.
30. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
R.C.Gupta's case (supra) was rendered by a two Judge Bench strength
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Bench strength of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court which delivered the subsequent judgment, in
Sunil Kumar B.'s case rather became comprised of three Hon'ble
Judges of the Supreme Court. The relevant conclusions as became
recorded thereins are borne in paragraph No. 44 thereof, paragraph
whereof becomes extracted hereinafter.
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 sub−paragraphs.
(ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification
no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 nd 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
25 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -26-
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 cut−off 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 1 st 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 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
26 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -27-
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.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.
31. Consequently, the judgment pronounced by the larger
Bench strength of the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Sunil
Kumar B.'s case (supra), if overrules or modifies, the previously
rendered verdict in R.C.Gupta's case (supra), thus by the lesser
therein Bench strength of the Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court,
therebys, the judgment made in in R.C.Gupta's case (supra) would not
have any compliable force. Therefore, the inter-se conflict, if any,
which emerges inter-se the previous judgment rendered in R.C.Gupta's
case (supra) and the subsequent judgment rendered in Sunil Kumar
B's case (supra), thus requires becoming culled out.
32. In the judgment rendered in R.C.Gupta's case which was
a judgment delivered by a two Judge Bench strength of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, it became postulated, that the proviso underneath para
11 (3) of EPS, 1995, proviso whereof becomes re-extracted hereinafter,
whereins it becomes expressed, that if the apposite joint option of the
employer and the employee, results in the contributions paid on salary
27 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -28-
exceeding Rs. 6500/- per month, from the date of the commencement of
the scheme or from the date the salary exceeds Rs. 6500/- per month,
which ever is later, thereupons, the therein postulations respectively
relating to the date when the relevant contribution(s) is/are made or the
date when the salary exceeds the ceiling limit concerned, thus are not to
be construable as the cut off dates. Consequently, it was concluded in
the verdict (supra) rendered by the Supreme Court, that since the
scheme is beneficial to the employees, therebys, any reference to any
purported cut off date, rather would defeat the holistic purpose of the
scheme, thus obviously beneficial to the employees. As such, complete
openness of times but is left for the contribution(s) being made into
the apposite fund, irrespective of the salary exceeding the ceiling
limit concerned. In other words, the joint option is amenable to be
exercised irrespective of any purported cut off date, thus sparked
from the above postulations.
[Provided that if at the option of the employer and employee,
contribution paid on salary exceeding [rupees six thousand and five
hundred/Rs.6,500/-] per month from the date of commencement of this
Scheme or from the date salary exceeds [rupees six thousand and five
hundred/Rs.6,500/-] whichever is later, and 8.33 per cent share of the
employers thereof is remitted into the Pension Fund, pensionable salary shall
be based on such higher salary.]
33. The further reason, as became delineated thereins, was
that therebys, if yet the cut off date is meted any reverence,
therebys, the employer who deposited 12 per cent of the actual
salary and not 12 % of the ceiling limit, besides with yet such a
deposit when otherwise may not be consensual, whereas, the
consensuality of the said deposit but was a sine qua none, thus for
28 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -29-
the scheme becoming enforced as such, yet the factum of the
employer evidently depositing 12 per cent of the salary and not 12
per cent of the ceiling limit, rather holding overwhelming clout.
Resultantly therebys, there may concomitantly become engendered
situations, wherebys, subsequent increases in salary or in the ceiling
limits' concerned, may happen, to which any reverence may be
assignable, besides whereto the benefits may become endowed to
the employees, thus, becoming ill ousted to the detriment of the
employees, wherebys, the beneficial purpose of the scheme would
become jettisoned.
34. As such, it was declared that the exercisings of a joint
option under paragraph 26 (6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, thus is a
necessary precursor qua the exercising(s) of the envisaged option
under Clause 11 (3) of the EPS, 1995, wherebys, it was further
declared that if the said option is exercised, therebys, there would
be no foreclosure of any rights, to the employer and the employee,
to yet bilaterally exercise a further option under clause 11 (3) of the
EPS, 1995, unless the circumstances warranting such foreclosure
are clearly indicated. The provisions of para 26 (6) of the EPF
Scheme, 1952 and the provisions of para 11 (3) of EPS, 1995
become extracted hereinafter.
Para 26 (6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952.
"26. Classes of employees entitled and required to join
the Fund.
(1) (a) Every employee employed in or in connection with
the work of a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme
29 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -30-
applied, other than a excluded employee, shall be entitled and required
to become a member of the Fund from the day this paragraph comes
into force in such factory or other establishment.
(b) xxxx
(2) to (5) xxxx
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this
paragraph, an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner may, on the joint request in writing of any
employee of a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme
applies and his employer, enroll such employee as a member or allow
him to contribute more than fifteen thousand rupees of his pay per
month if he is already a member of the fund and thereupon such
employee shall be entitled to the benefits and shall be subject to the
conditions of the fund, provided that the employer gives an
undertaking in writing that he shall pay the administrative charges
payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of
such employee.]
Para 11 (3) of EPS, 1995.
11. Determination of Pensionable Salary.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) The maximum pensionable salary shall be limited to [rupees
six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500/-] per month.
[Provided that if at the option of the employer and employee,
contribution paid on salary exceeding [rupees six thousand
and five hundred/Rs.6,500/-] per month from the date of
commencement of this Scheme or from the date salary exceeds
[rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500/-] whichever is
later, and 8.33 per cent share of the employers thereof is
remitted into the Pension Fund, pensionable salary shall be
based on such higher salary.]
35. Since the proviso to para 11 (3) of the EPS, 1995 became
deleted. Therefore, this Court need not detain itself in determining the
30 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -31-
conflict, if any, which has emerged inter-se the previous judgment and
the subsequent judgment rendered by the Apex Court. The reason
becomes underscored in the factum, that in the previous judgment
rendered in R.C.Gupta's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
dealing with the unamended Pension Scheme, 1995, whereas, in the
subsequent judgment, the three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, was dealing with the amendment made in the year 2014 qua in
the said scheme, wherebys, the proviso of para 11 (3) of the EPS, 1995
became deleted and para 11 (4) was inserted in the EPS, 1995. The
provisions of para 11 (4) of the EPS, 1995 become extracted
hereinafter.
Clause 11(4) of the EPS, 1995
[(4) The existing members as on the 1st day of
September, 2014, who at the option of the employer and employee, had
been contributing on salary exceeding six thousand and five hundred
rupees per month, may on a fresh option to be exercised jointly by the
employer and employee continue to contribute on salary exceeding
fifteen thousand rupees per month and the pensionable salary for the
existing members who prefer such fresh option shall be based on the
higher salary]:
Provided that the aforesaid members have to contribute at
the rate of 1.16 per cent on salary exceeding fifteen thousand rupees as
an additional contribution from and out of the contributions payable by
the employees for each month under the provisions of the Act or the
rules made thereunder:
Provided further that the fresh option shall be exercised by
the member within a period of six months from the 1st day of
September, 2014:
Provided also that the period specified in the second
proviso may, on sufficient cause being shown by the member, be
extended by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for a further
period not exceeding six months:
Provided also if no option is exercised by the member
within such period (including the extended period), it shall be deemed
that the member has not opted for contribution over wage ceiling and
the contributions to the Pension Fund made over the wage ceiling in
respect of the member shall be diverted to the Provident Fund account
of the member along with interest as declared under the Employees'
Provident Funds Scheme from time to time.
31 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -32-
36. Consequently, the compliable judgment on all scores,
excepting the employees and the employers who become governed by
the amended scheme of 2014, thus to the extent, that the supra
declarations of law become crystalized therefroms, rather is the
judgment made by a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sunil Kumar B's case (supra).
37. However, the majority of the employees rather are seeking
the applicability of the judgment passed in R.C.Gupta's case (supra).
Therefore, vis-a-vis those employees who are seeking the applicability
qua them vis-a-vis the judgment delivered in R.C.Gupta's case
(supra), thereupons, their respective entitlement(s) would be governed,
now thus in terms of the expostulations made in the subsequent
judgment delivered by the three judge Bench strength of the Supreme
Court in Sunil Kumar B.'s case (supra). The said expostulations of
law are inter alia summarized as under.
38. The import of the crystalizations of law, made in the
subsequent judgment, delivered by the three Judge Bench strength of
the Apex Court when do candidly expostulate that
a) 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. As such, the impact of the supra stated
expostulation of law, is that, those employees who are after
exercising options in terms of the proviso to para 11(3) of the EPS,
1995, thus had continued to be in service after 1st September, 2014,
32 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -33-
therebys, they would be governed by the amended provisions.
Resultantly therebys, the explicit mandate of the supra stated
relevant conclusion, as, drawn in the subsequent judgment
delivered by the three Judge Bench strength of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, is that, therebys, it becomes enjoined that for the
employee concerned becoming entitled to seek the benefit of the
amended provisions, inasmuch as, of para 11(4) of the EPS, 1995,
theirs thus becoming required to be cogently establish that
i) he/she had exercised option in terms of the
proviso to para 11(3) of the EPS, 1995.
ii) he/she was in service as on 1st September, 2014.
39. Resultantly therebys, irrespective of the deletion of the
proviso (supra) which had earlier existed in the EPS, 1995, through
the amending provisions becoming brought on the rule book in the
year 2014, yet on the supra facts becoming cogently established,
therebys there being continuity of application of the option
exercised, thus under the proviso to paragraph 11 (3) of the EPS,
1995, besides the employees concerned, would now be guided by
the amended provisions of paragraph 11 (4) of the pension scheme.
40. The further proposition of law which becomes
crystalized in the subsequent verdict delivered by a three Judge
Bench strength of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is that, in respect of
the surviving members of the scheme, or those who had not
superannuated at the time of coming into force of the 2014
amended scheme, thereupons, if they had earlier not exercised
33 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -34-
option in terms of the proviso to paragraph 11 (3) of the EPS, 1995,
yet, they became declared to exercise option under paragraph 11 (4)
of the post amended scheme.
41. Be that as it may, the slight point of difference which has
emerged inter-se the previous two Judge Bench strength judgment
delivered in R.C.Gupta's case (supra) and the subsequent three Judge
Bench strength judgment, delivered in Sunil Kumar B's case (supra),
is confined, to the expostulation made in sub para (v) in paragraph 44
of the judgment made in Sunil Kumar B's case (supra), wherebys, it
was declared that those employees who had retired, thus prior to 1st
September, 2014, but without exercising any option under paragraph 11
(3) of the pre-amended scheme, besides had already exited from the
membership thereof, thereupons, they would not be entitled to the
benefit of the judgment passed in R.C.Gupta's case (supra) nor
therebys they would become entitled to the pension scheme (amended )
of 2014.
42. Be that as it may, it has to be adjudicated whether per-se
therebys in absence of proof of the relevant ingredients carried in the
hereinafter referred provisions, whether the employees concerned, thus
ipso facto becoming dis-entitled to become the recipients of the pension
fund.
43. As such, the impact of the above, is that, there was a
necessity of exercising options under para 11 (3) of the EPS, 1995
besides there was a necessity of proof emerging that there was no
34 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -35-
voluntary exitings by any member of the pension fund concerned, rather
from membership thereofs.
44. To the objective mind of this Court, the underlining of the
supra, is that, only on evident proof emerging in respect of the supra
parameters, qua therebys the employees concerned, thus would not be
entitled to the benefit of the amended pension scheme of 1995/2014.
45. Further, it is relevant to allude to a recent judgment made
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Powergrid Retired
Employees' Association (PREA) Vs. Union of India and Ors., to
which Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No (s). 97/2025 became assigned. In the
said case, the petitioner(s) therein sought a review of the judgment
passed by a three Judge Bench strength of the Apex Court in Sunil
Kumar B's case (supra). The said writ petition became dismissed vide
order dated 19.03.2025. The operative part of the said verdict becomes
extracted hereinafter.
" xxxx
In view of the fact that it is an admitted position that
these employees have retired prior to 01.09.2014 & that too without
exercising their option. We see no reason to entertain this petition in
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India."
46. Reiteratedly, to the objective and insightful understanding
of this Court, the dis-entitlements as declared thereunders, qua those
who had superannuated prior to 1st September, 2014, and, who had
exited from the membership of the scheme or the fund, whereupon, they
were declared to be not entitled to the benefit of the judgment delivered
35 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -36-
in Sunil Kumar B's case, though is argued by the counsel for the
EPFO, to be squarely attracted vis-a-vis the petitioners, but the said
argument warrants rejection.
47. The reason for stating so becomes grooved in the
factum that the said argument would have a formidable force only,
when there was cogent evidence existing on record, manifestating
qua those employees, who superannuated before 1st September,
2014, thus had also voluntarily exited from the membership of the
fund. Moreover, it has to be analyzed whether those employees, who
superannuated prior to 1st September, 2014, besides voluntarily
exiting from the membership of the scheme, thus had also done so
without exercising the joint option, as envisaged under paragraph
11 (3) of the pre amended scheme of 1995.
48. The relevant respective entitlement(s) or dis-entitlement(s),
as created against the employees concerned, requires a clear
understanding of the relevant conclusions which become carried in sub
para (iii) to (vi) of paragraph No. 44 of the verdict made by the Apex
Court in Sunil Kumar B' case (supra), conclusions whereof become
re-extracted hereinafter.
(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
36 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -37-
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 cut−off 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 1 st 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.
49. A circumspect reading of the supra extracted relevant
conclusions, makes it imminently clear, that the facum of
superannuations' thus occurring before 01.09.2015 and that too
without the exercising of the option under para 11 (3) of the pre-
amended scheme, besides also the factum of the apposite voluntary
exitings from the membership of the fund, but are necessarily
entwined with each other. In other words, the supra stated
respective superannuation and voluntary exitings from the
37 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -38-
membership of the apposite fund, do require, qua both thereof,
becoming cogently established, thus by the employer, so that
therebys, a convincing premise can be erected, that as such the dis-
entitlement(s) declared in Sunil Kumar B.'s case (supra) can be
declared to become pointedly attracted vis-a-vis the employees.
50. Since there is an inter-linkage between the apposite
superannuation occurring before 01.09.2014 and the voluntarily
exitings from the membership of the scheme. Therefore, initially
this Court is required to be analyzing, the relevant provisions as
carried in the Employee Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, whereins,
provisions occur relating to the membership of the fund and,
whereins too, the funds pursuant to the exercising of bilateral
options, thus enter/entered into. The said provisions become
extracted hereinafter.
MEMBERSHIP OF THE FUND
26. Classes of employees entitled and required to join the
fund- (1) (a) Every employee employed in or in connection with
the work of a factory or other establishment to which this
scheme applies, other than an excluded employee, shall be
entitled and required to become a member of the Fund from the
day this paragraph comes into force in such factory or other
establishment.
(b) Every employee employed in or in connection with the
work of a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme
applies, other than an excluded employee, shall also be entitled
and required to become a member of the fund from the day this
paragraph comes into force in such factory or other
establishment if on the date of such coming into force, such
employee is a subscriber to a provident fund maintained in
respect of the factory or other establishment or in respect of any
38 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -39-
other factory or establishment (to which the Act applies) under
the same employer:
Provided that where the Scheme applies to a factory or
other establishment on the expiry or cancellation of an order of
exemption under section 17 of the Act, every employee who but
for the exemption would have become and continued as a
member of the Fund, shall become a member of the Fund
forthwith.
(2) After this paragraph comes into force in a factory or
other establishment, every employee employed in or in
connection with the work of that factory or establishment, other
than an excluded employee, who has not become a member
already shall also be entitled and required to become a member
of the Fund from the date of joining the factory or
establishment.
(3) An excluded employee employed in or in connection with
the work of a factory or other establishment, to which this
Scheme applies shall, on ceasing to be such an employee, be
entitled and required to become a member of the Fund from the
date he ceased to be such employee.
(4) On re-election of an employee or a class of employees
exempted under paragraph 27 or paragraph 27-A to join the
Fund or on the expiry or cancellation of an order under that
paragraph, every employee shall forthwith become a member
thereof.
(5) Every employee who is a member of a private provident
fund maintained in respect of an exempted factory or other
establishment and who but for exemption would have become
and continued as a member of the fund shall, on joining a
factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies,
become a member of the fund forthwith.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph,
an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner may, on the joint request in writing, of any
employee of a factory or other establishment to which this
Scheme applies and his employer, enroll such employee as a
39 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -40-
member or allow him to contribute more than rupees [fifteen
thousand rupees of his pay per month if he is already a member
of the Fund and thereupon such employee shall be entitled to
the benefits and shall be subject to the conditions of the Fund,
provided that the employer gives an undertaking in writing that
he shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall
comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such
employee.
51. It is not controverted nor are there any pleadings to the
extent, that the petitioners were not entitled to nor qua theirs validly
acquiring the membership of the funds. Now, if assumingly, if there is
some contest on the part of the respondents, that the employees
concerned, did not join the membership of the fund, wherefroms, they
were required to make an exit in terms of Section 26 A of the EPF
Scheme, 1952, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter.
[26-A. Retention of membership - (1) A member of
the Fund shall continue to be member until he withdraws under
paragraph 69 the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or is
covered by a notification of exemption under Section 17 of the Act or
an order of exemption under paragraph 27 or paragraph 27-A.
52. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the
said contention was required to become fortified, from theirs
evidently never occurring any joint remissions, bearing the nuance
of an option becoming exercised in terms of para 26-A of the EPF
Scheme, 1952. Contrarily, if in respect of those employees' certain
deposits were made and that too, without any demure at the
instance of the employers. Resultantly therebys, when the
employers ipso facto permitted the employees to make
contribution(s) onto the fund, as contemplated in paragraph 26
40 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -41-
(supra), therebys, the undemured makings of the said remissions
thus at the instance of the employees, thus into the scheme
contemplated for all the relevant purposes, inclusive of pension
being therefroms payable to the employees, but is an explicit
manifestation qua therebys, there being a bilateral co-optings vis-a-
vis the requisite exercising of options in terms of the proviso to para
11 (3) of the EPS, 1995. The further corollary thereof, is that,
especially when no evidence exists on record, that therebys the
employer also, if required, thus also remitting into the relevant fund
its proportionate share of contribution(s) thereofs.
53. Resultantly when therebys, the subsequent three Judge
Bench in its verdict made in Sunil Kumar B.'s case (supra), has
preserved, to those bilateral co-optees, yet the benefits of the
exercising(s) of the apposite conjoint option, as contemplated in the
now deleted proviso to paragraph 11 (3) of the pension scheme, but
in terms of the amendment/insertion of para 11 (4) in the EPS, 1995
becoming made. Consequently, vis-a-vis those employees, the
condition embodied in the conclusion (supra) occurring in the
verdict drawn by the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar B.'s case (supra),
inasmuch as, those employees who had superannuated prior to
01.09.2014, and, who had not exercised any option under
paragraph 11 (3) of the pre-amended scheme, besides evidently had
exited from the membership thereof, wherebys they would not be
entitled to the benefit of the said judgment, thus did require firm
tangible evidence in support thereof, becoming adduced on record.
41 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -42-
However, the said firm evidence does not exist on record, therebys,
there can be no application of the supra conclusion(s) vis-a-vis the
petitioner(s) concerned.
54. Moreover, reiteratedly, since as stated (supra), it becomes
declared by this Court, that yet alongwith the lack of bilateral option
becoming exercised, for therebys the superannuated employees before
the cut off date i.e. 01.09.2014, becoming dis-entitled, to become
recipients of the supra paragraph, rather did also require, that they were
to be evidently voluntarily exiting from the membership of the fund.
Therefore, a circumspect analysis of the provisions of Section 26A of
the EPF Scheme, 1952 but is naturally required.
55. Since paragraph No. 26, as embodied in Chapter IV of the
EPF Scheme, 1952, details the classes of employees entitled to join the
fund. Resultantly since there is no dispute with respect to the
entitlement of the present employees to join the fund, as envisaged in
the EPF Scheme, 1952. As such, when the employees concerned,
became legitimately enrolled as members of the apposite fund.
Therefore, the consequence of the employees becoming validly
enrolled, as members of the fund, is that, when Section 26-A of the EPF
Scheme, 1995, provisions whereof become extracted hereinabove,
confers an entitlement qua an enrolled member of the fund, thus to
retain membership thereofs, until he withdraws under paragraph 69
of the said Scheme, rather the amount standing credited in his fund or
is covered by the notification of exemption under Section 17 of the Act
or an order of exemption under paragraph 27 or paragraph 27-A.
42 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -43-
56. As such, when thereby there is conferment of continuity of
membership of the fund concerned vis-a-vis the enrolled member
thereof, thereupons, unless evidence surges forth, that he had
voluntarily withdrawn, as underlined in paragraph 69 (supra), thus the
amounts standing to his credit in the fund or he became covered by the
notification of exemption under Section 17 of the Act or an order of
exemption under paragraph 27 or paragraph 27-A, thereupons, the
supra conclusion was not to be applied vis-a-vis the petitioner(s)
concerned.
57. Now, since no evidence surges forth, that the employees
had voluntarily exited from the fund, therebys, the argument (supra)
raised by the learned counsel for the EPFO, but becomes rendered
rudderless.
58. Consequently, when the Employees Pension Fund, as
envisaged in para 3 of the EPS, 1995, becomes the financial corpus, for
disbursing therefroms the payable pensions to the employees. In sequel,
the said created financial corpus for the relevant purpose, thus is
naturally dependent upon the acquisition of membership under Section
26 of the EPF Scheme, 1952.
59. Now, since this Court has inferred, that the petitioner(s)
herein were validly enrolled as members of the Employee's Pension
Fund. Furthermore, since this Court has hereinabove concluded, that
there is continuity of retention of membership vis-a-vis the Employees
Provident Fund Scheme, unless it becomes cogently proven, that the
enrolled members of the scheme (supra) rather had voluntarily
43 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -44-
withdrawn in terms of paragraph 69 of the EPF Scheme, 1952, thus the
entire amounts standing credited qua him in the apposite fund.
60. Since as stated (supra), there is prima facie, no apposite
voluntary withdrawal(s) by any of the employees, who became un-
disputedly enrolled as members of the pension fund, as envisaged in
para 3 of the EPS, 1995, rather when the same may have been
unilaterally disbursed vis-a-vis them.
61. As such, when by the mere ipse dixit of the employer, they
were forced to untenably, thus unilaterally exit from the membership of
the fund, thus contrary to the envisagings made in Section 26 of the
EPF Scheme, 1952. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for
the respondent, that they had validly voluntarily exited from the
membership of the fund, and, therebys they were not entitled to the
benefit of the judgment (supra), is an argument, which requires
rejection, especially when they had continued to uptil the coming into
force of the EPS, 1995, to retain the membership of the fund, as
envisaged in Section 26 of the EPF Scheme, 1952, more especially
before their retirement taking place prior to 1st September, 2014.
62. Moreover, when they had exercised the required joint
option as manifestated from theirs remitting the relevant amounts, onto
the funds, wherefroms, pension was payable in terms of the employees
pension fund as envisaged in para 3 of the EPS, 1995.
63. Therefore, the benefit of the interpretation (supra) made by
this Court, to the conclusion, as made by the Apex Court in sub para (v)
in paragraph No. 44 of its verdict rendered in Sunil Kumar B.'s case
44 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -45-
(supra) thus would ensue to the employees, who retired prior to
01.09.2014 but without exercising any option, but on the hereinafter
counts :
a) if the employer of such employees had in terms of
para 3 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, thus without demure
had permitted the employees concerned, who superannuated before
01.09.2014, to make remittance(s) into the relevant pension fund,
wherebys, if required, there was a concomitant necessity entailed upon
the employer to also make proportionate contribution(s) into the fund
which also as stated (supra) appears to have been done.
b) Those employees, who had acquired the membership
of the pension fund, through subscription(s) theretos becoming made.
c) to those employees who had not voluntary exited
from the pension fund but by the mere ipse dixit of the employer, the
latter had unilaterally released the entire contribution(s) relating to the
pension of the employees.
64. Accordingly, the respondents concerned are directed, to, in
terms of the supra interpretation made to the conclusions, as made by
the Apex Court in paragraph No. 44 of its verdict rendered in Sunil
Kumar B.'s case (supra) besides in view of the parameters made by
this Court in paragraph No. 63, decide the claim(s) of each of the
employees, through passing a speaking order, but after hearing all
affected concerned.
65. The said speaking decision be ensured to be made within a
period of six weeks from today.
45 of 46
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:044017-DB
CWP-14622-2023 and connected cases -46-
Final Order of this Court.
66. In aftermath, with the direction(s) and observation(s)
aforesaid the writ petition(s) are disposed of.
67. Since the main cases itself have been decided, thus, all the
pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
68. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected cases.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(H.S.GREWAL)
28.03.2025 JUDGE
kavneet singh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
46 of 46
