Malipatel Ram Krishna Reddy vs The Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 1787 Tel

Telangana High Court

Malipatel Ram Krishna Reddy 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