P.B.Ella Reddy, Hyderabad And 5 Others vs The Apsrtc., Musherabad,Hyderabad And ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3002 Tel

Telangana High Court

P.B.Ella Reddy, Hyderabad And 5 Others vs The Apsrtc., Musherabad,Hyderabad And ... on 31 July, 2024

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No.24709 of 2007
ORDER :

This writ petition is filed for the following relief;

"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent in not taking in to consideration petitioners' option for higher pension as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the pension basing on the higher options made by the petitioners by issuing the Revised PPOs'".

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners,

Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent No.1 - Road Transport Corporation and

Sri Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

Employee Provident Fund Organization for respondent

Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that

petitioners are the retired employees of Telangana Road

Transport Corporation. All of them are covered by the

provisions of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Learned

counsel submits that the 2nd respondent issued

proceedings dated 04.06.1996 stating that under

NBK, J

Employees Pension Scheme 1995, who are willing to

contribute beyond the limit of Rs.5,000/- have to credit the

same to the pension fund, thereby such individuals would

get higher pension and they have made such contribution.

It is their case that inspite of making higher contribution

their pension is fixed at lower level and therefore

represented before the 2nd respondent for revision of their

pension and issuance of revised PPOs, but the same was

not considered. Dissatisfied by the same, similar situated

employees filed Writ Petition No.7433 of 2007 which was

disposed of directing the 2nd respondent therein to issue

revised PPOs to petitioners therein as early as possible. It

is the further grievance of petitioners that similarly

situated employees were sanctioned higher pensionary

benefits. Petitioners are before this Court seeking the

similar relief.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and

3 would submits that additional counter affidavit is filed,

wherein it has been specifically stated that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has adjudicated the issue in Employees

NBK, J

Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. and

others 1. In paragraph No.44, it is observed as under:

'(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.

1 AIR 2022 SC 5634

NBK, J

(iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C.Gupta and others vs.Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and other [ (2018) 14 SCC 809]. 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

NBK, J

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 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

NBK, J

salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees' contribution shall be as stop gap 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)

NBK, J

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.'

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned

counsel on either side, this Writ Petition is disposed of in

terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Employees Provident Fund Organisation's

case (supra). No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date:31.07.2024 Smk