Telangana High Court
S.Ilaiah vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 9 January, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION Nos.39441, 39442, 39464, 39663,
40062, 39416, 39425, 39436 & 39438
COMMON ORDER:
The issue and the grievance in all these writ
petitions being identical they are considered together by
this common order.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the
respondent authorities in not paying the higher pension
on par with similarly situated persons, in terms of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta v.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1.
3. Heard Sri Sadu Rajeshwar Reddy, learned counsel
for the petitioners, Sri P. Madhusudan Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2- Provident Fund
Association, and Mr. N.Chandra Sekhar, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-RTC. Perused the
record.
(2018) 14 SCC 809
4. It is represented by learned counsel that the
subject matter in these writ petitions is squarely covered
by the orders dated 09.07.2024 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.29281 of 2019 and, therefore, same orders may
be passed in these writ petitions also.
5. A perusal of the order dated 09.07.2024 in
W.P.No.2928 of 2019 would show that this Court
disposed of the writ petition in the light of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C.Gupta
(Supra), by directing as follows:
"Fifty-four petitions have been filed by the
employees themselves or on their behalf under Article 32
of the Constitution of India seeking invalidation of the
notification dated 22nd August 2014. The writ petitioners
are members of both exempted and unexempted
establishments. We shall address these writ petitions as
well in this judgment, as they involve the same questions
of law. We find that notices are yet to be issued in
W.P.(C) No.1356 of 2021, W.P. (C) No.1379 of 2021, W.P.
(C) No.767 of 2021 and W.P. (C) No.477 of 2021 but these
petitions also involve the same questions of law and the
main respondents have participated in addressing us on
these points. As such, these writ petitions shall also be
dealt with in this judgment. We have also heard the
intervenors, most of whom support the employees. In
addition, there are contempt petitions (Contempt
petition (C) Nos.1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt
Petition (C) No.619-620 of 2019) in which implementation
of a 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] delivered on 4th October 2016 has been
asked for. This judgment dealt with the question of
entitlement of members of the pension scheme, whose
pensionable salary exceeded Rs.6500/- per month to
exercise option in terms of proviso to paragraph 11 (3) of
the scheme. In this judgment, a Division bench of this
Court repelled the contention of the provident fund
authorities that the said proviso contemplated exercise of
option within a specified time. The said proviso has been
omitted by the amendment of 2014. Rs.650/- was the
maximum pensionable salary prior to 1st September 2014.
We shall discuss this judgment in greater detail later."
6. Accordingly, in terms of the orders dated
09.07.2024 in W.P.No.29281 of 2019, and for reasons
alike these writ petitions are also disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending,
if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
Date:09.01.2025
hk
