[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lachhman Dass vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation ... on 19 January, 2026
CWP-998-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
130
CWP-998-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.01.2026
Lachhman Dass
....Petitioner
Versus
Employees' Provident Fund Organization and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Manjit Singh Sarao, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Baltej Pal Singh Walia, Advocate
with Mr. Harsh Suhalia, Advocate
and Ms. Karishma Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari, for quashing the letter dated 14.08.2025 (Annexure P-1)
issued by respondent No.2, whereby the joint option application dated
21.06.2023 (Annexure P-2) submitted by the petitioner and respondent
No.3, for higher wages pension, has been rejected. Further a writ of
mandamus has been sought, directing respondent No.3 to supply
missing data to respondent No.2 to enable him to recalculate demand for
release of higher wages pension and further direction respondent No.2
to release the higher wages pension calculated on actual wages in terms
of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C)
1 of 5
No.8658-8659 of 2019, titled as Employees Provident Fund
Organisation and another vs Sunil Kumar B. and others, decided on
04.11.2022 and further to pay interest @ 18% per annum on account of
non-release of pension to the petitioner from the date it became due till
its realization.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that
the petitioner retired on 31.05.2017 after rendering long and
unblemished service under respondent No.3. Pursuant to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B.'s case
(supra), the petitioner duly exercised the Joint Option for higher
pension on 21.06.2023 along with the employer, as discernible from
Annexure P-2. He further submits that respondent No.2 itself
acknowledged the petitioner's eligibility by issuing a demand letter
dated 08.04.2025 requiring deposit of an additional contribution
amounting to Rs.21,53,804/-, which the petitioner deposited without any
delay on 21.06.2025, as discernible from Annexures P-3 and P-4,
respectively. However, in a wholly arbitrary and self-contradictory
manner, respondent No. 2 thereafter, rejected the Joint Option vide
impugned order dated 14.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that
wage details for the period from 01.06.1984 to 30.09.2001 were not
supplied by respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for any alleged
omission on the part of the employer, particularly when respondent
No.2, being the statutory authority, is the custodian of relevant records
2 of 5
and has already accepted the additional contribution. He further argues
that despite issuance of legal notices by the petitioner seeking
recalculation of pension and procurement of the so-called missing data
(Annexures P-5 and P-6, respectively), respondent No.2, in its reply
(Annexure P-7), merely shifted the responsibility upon respondent No.3
and failed to take any effective steps to resolve the issue. He further
submits that the impugned rejection is unjust, unreasonable and
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides
being contrary to the binding directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Sunil Kumar B.'s case (supra), as the petitioner has fulfilled all the
substantive requirements and thus, he cannot be deprived of rightful
pensionary benefits on account of inter se administrative lapses between
the respondents.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 is not in a
position to controvert the fact that the eligibility of the petitioner is not
in question and pursuant to the demand notice, the petitioner has already
deposited additional contribution of Rs.21,53,804/-, on 21.06.2025.
Further the joint option was rejected on the ground of non-supply of the
wage details by respondent No.3.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record with their able assistance.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 31.05.2017
and his joint option application was examined by respondent No.2 in
accordance with the Pension Manual. After verification of records,
3 of 5
respondent No.2 itself calculated the due contribution with interest and
issued a provisional demand letter dated 08.04.2025, pursuant to which
the petitioner deposited the entire demanded amount of Rs.21,53,804/-
on 21.06.2025. Having accepted the contribution made by the petitioner,
respondent No.2 could not take U-turn by rejecting the joint option of
the petitioner on hyper-technical ground relating to alleged non-
availability of wage details, particularly when such details pertain to an
old period and are within the custody of statutory authorities. Further,
Para 5.2.7 of the Pension Manual clearly mandates that if a joint option
application is found deficient, an opportunity of one month is required
to be granted to the employer and employee to furnish additional
material or to rectify any error before rejection. Admittedly, no such
opportunity was afforded in the present case before passing the
impugned rejection order.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner
has fulfilled all substantive requirements and the statutory authority has
itself determined and accepted the additional contribution made by the
petitioner on 21.06.2025, the petitioner cannot be deprived of
pensionary benefits due to inter se lapses or administrative deficiencies
between the respondents. The impugned letter dated 14.08.2025,
therefore, suffers from arbitrariness and cannot be sustained.
7. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The
impugned letter dated 14.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed.
Respondent No.3 is directed to furnish any remaining or clarificatory
4 of 5
wage details, if required, in terms of Para 5.2.7 of the Pension Manual
for the period 01.06.1984 to 30.09.2001 to respondent No.2 within a
period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. Thereafter, respondents No.1 and 2 shall process the case of the
petitioner and release pension on higher wages along with all
consequential benefits within a further period of two months.
8. As regards the prayer for interest, this Court is of the view
that the ends of justice would be met by directing expeditious release of
pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for interest
is declined. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall not be
denied pensionary benefits on account of any alleged administrative
lapse attributable to the respondents.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
19.01.2026
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
