Telangana High Court
T Venkateswara Rao vs The Union Of India on 5 February, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
WRIT PETITION Nos.40733, 221, 306, 1678, 3145, 3234, 20076, 31427 of
2018, W.P.Nos.44091, 45294, 45295 of 2017, W.P.Nos.8852 & 16317 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Narsimha Sharma,
Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Ms.L.Pranathi Reddy,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Mr.M.P.Durga Prasad,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, Mr.Madhu Sudhan Reddy,
learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Mr.G.V.S.Ganesh,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.221 of 2018.
2. The challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to the amendment to the
Section 11 in GSR 609(E), dated 22.08.2014. The challenge was that the
said GSR was violative of Article Nos.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and also contrary to the existing pensionery benefits that the
petitioners were drawing.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it has been brought to
the notice of this Bench that identical matters had travelled to the Hon'ble
Supreme Court from the High Court of Kerala, Rajasthan and from Delhi
High Court and the batch of Special Leave Petitions decided vide judgment
dated 04.11.2022. The said judgment stands reported in (2023) 12 SCC 701.
4. All the counsels representing the respective respondents have fairly
accepted the fact that the present batch of writ petitions also being identical
in nature can be disposed of in terms of the guidelines so laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the aforesaid batch of SLPs. In the
said batch of SLPs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after extensively
considering the matter while disposing of the said SLPs have held as under:
"We accordingly hold and direct:
(i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E)
dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present
members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain
provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall
give our findings and directions on these provisions in the
subsequent subparagraphs.
(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 the case of R.C.
Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1st September 2014 did
not provide for any cut off date and thus those members shall be
entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph11(4) of the scheme,
as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature
of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the
amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.
There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment
scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three
High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option
but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on
cutoff date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to
exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4)
of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a
further period of four months. We are giving this direction in
exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India.
Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be
complied with.
(v) The employees who had retired prior to 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 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) (preamendment) pension scheme is concerned. The
fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said
judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions
contained earlier in this paragraph.
(x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.19171918 of 2018 and Contempt
Petition (C) Nos. 619620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10013-14 of
2016 are disposed of in the above terms.
All the appeals which we have heard simultaneously are allowed in
the above terms and the judgments impugned are modified
accordingly. The writ petitions brought by employees or their
representatives shall also stand disposed of in the same terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs".
5. In view of the aforesaid authoritative decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, we are inclined to dispose of this batch of writ petitions also in
similar terms. Accordingly, this batch of writ petitions stand disposed of.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
___________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
Date:05.02.2025
AQS
