High Court of KeralaDivision BenchWrit appeal allowed; Single Judge order set asi...

Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others v M K Abdul Hameed and others

Case / Petition Number:WA NO. 181 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Amit Rawal
  • C.S. Sudha
Judgment Date
2024-02-12
Court Decision / Holding
WA No. 181 of 2021 allowed; the order of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 16408/2019 is set aside; the writ petition is allowed in terms of the Supreme Court's directions in Sunil Kumar; the amended pension scheme (G.S.R. 609(E)) applies to exempted establishments; extension of the option period by four months and implementation within eight weeks are directed, with pensionable salary computed per the amended scheme.
Final Disposition
Writ appeal allowed; Single Judge order set aside; WP(C) 16408/2019 allowed consistent with Supreme Court directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation
  • Regional PF Commissioner - 1 (Pension), Employees Provident Fund Organisation
  • Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation
  • Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Sub Regional Office

Respondents

  • M K Abdul Hameed
  • A Abdul Latheef
  • P.K. Abdurahiman
  • C.P. Moideenkutty
  • P. Velayuthan
  • P. Unnikrishnan
  • P. Sunil Kumar
  • K.P. Moideen Bava
  • C.V. Mohanan
  • T. Ameera Ali
  • P. Suresh Babu
  • N. Hari Govindan
  • T. Devadasan
  • N. Kunhipocker
  • C. Koya
  • K. Sudarsanan
  • P. Mani
  • C. Hamza
  • C. Aboobacker
  • K. P. Hamza
  • P. P. Hamza
  • S. Sulaiman
  • K. K. Manoj
  • K. A. Boobacker
  • M. K. Hameed
  • K. K. Sunil Kumar
  • N. Sivadasan
  • K. Prakashan
  • A. K. Pradeep Kumar
  • P. Vs. Saidalavi Koya
  • T. K. Suresh Kumar
  • K Praveesan
  • K. Suresh
  • P. Ahammed Kutty
  • T. Raveendran
  • E. Sivadasan
  • C. Ibrahim
  • C. Ranjan
  • P. Mohanan
  • P. Ahammed Kutty
  • C. Abdurahiman
  • K P Mohideen
  • C. Sundaran
  • T. K. Koyamu
  • K.K. Vinod
  • C. P. Kunhimoammed
  • P. Mohammed
  • Union of India
  • Food Corporation of India (FCI)
  • The General Manager (CPF)/Secretary, FCI CPF Trust
  • FCI

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Premsankar R
  • • Jose Kuriaakkose (Vilanggattill)
  • • K. Krishna Kumar
  • • N. Satheesh

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Premsankar R
  • • Jose Kuriaakkose (Vilanggattill)
  • • K. Krishna Kumar
  • • N. Satheesh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ appeal (WA No. 181 of 2021) arises from WP(C) 16408/2019 challenging the Kerala High Court Single Judge’s order granting relief to employees under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the pension scheme. The appellants contend the matter is governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar (2022) (6) KLT 234 (SC), which upheld the 2014 amendment to the pension scheme (G.S.R. 609(E)) and held that the amended scheme applies to exempted establishments; it also directed transfer of funds and anticipated option rights under para 11(3)/(11)(4) of the pension scheme. The respondents claim the post-amendment scheme is valid and that the Single Judge’s reliefs should be sustained within the statutory framework of the 1952 Act. The Supreme Court’s decision in Sunil Kumar is extracted and relied upon, including directions for extending the period to exercise options and for computing pensionable salary under the amended scheme. The judgment ultimately sets aside the learned Single Judge’s order, allowing the writ appeal and directing implementation of the Supreme Court’s directives with time-bound compliance, thereby harmonizing the Kerala case with theSunil Kumar decision and the RC Gupta view on pre-amendment provisos.

Provisions of Law Cited

Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952Pension Scheme (amendment) 2014 (G.S.R. 609(E))Para 11(3) of the Pension Scheme (pre-amendment)Para 11(4) of the Pension Scheme (post-amendment)G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 August 2014

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Article 142 of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants submitted that the matter is governed by the Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Kumar (2022) and that the amended pension scheme (G.S.R. 609(E)) applies to exempted establishments. They argued for pension on the basis of actual salary, transfer of employer contributions to the Employees Pension Fund with arrears, and retrospective relief consistent with the Sunil Kumar directions. They urged adoption of the four-part framework laid down by the Supreme Court, including extension of option periods and alignment with the post-amendment scheme.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the validity of the post-amendment pension scheme and urged adherence to the statutory framework under the 1952 Act, cautioning against broad retroactive relief beyond the amendment. They contended that any relief must respect the amended scheme’s terms and the scheme’s fiscal viability, and that the Kerala Single Judge’s reliefs should be upheld within the statutory constraints.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar2022 (6) KLT 234 (SC)PositiveSupreme Court decision relied upon to validate the 2014 amendment and direct applicability to exempted establishments; used as the controlling precedent in this appeal.
R.C. GuptaRC Gupta (supra)PositiveCourt agrees with the Division Bench's view in RC Gupta on interpretation of para 11(3) proviso (pre-amendment).

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others v M K Abdul Hameed and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# _`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`_ ## _`PRESENT`_ ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA MONDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 23RD MAGHA, 1945 ``` ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 16408/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## _`APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:`_ ``` 1CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 066. 2REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER - 1 (PENSION), EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 066. 3REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, NO.36/685-A, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PB NO.1895, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, - 682 017. 4THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.36/685-A, BHAVISHYANITHI BHAVAN, P.B.1895 KALOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 017. BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1, 6 & 7 IN WP(C):`_ ``` 1M K ABDUL HAMEED AGED 46 YEARS FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FOOD STORAGE DEPO-KUTTIPPURAM, DIRECT PAYMENT SYSTEM, HEAD LOAD WORKER, DPS-9, CPF ROLL-NO-41187, UAN 100208085342, KUTTPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. ``` ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 2 ``` - _`2 A.ABDUL LATHEEF, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW) DPS-10, CPF ROLL NO.41188, UAN 100261574604, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571.`_ - _`3 P.K.ABDURAHIMAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW)-DPS-II, CPF ROLL NO.41189, UAN - 100261883515, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679571`_ - _`4 C.P.MOIDEENKUTTY, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD-KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW) ,-DPS-12, CPF ROLL NO.41190, UAN - 100120400397, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571.`_ ``` 5P.VELAYUTHAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD-KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW), DPS-20 (MONDAL), CPF ROLL NO.41198, UAN - 100262786686, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. ``` ``` 6P.UNNIKRISHNAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD-KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW),DPS-22, CPF ROLL NO.41200, UAN - 100262727701, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. ``` ``` 7P.SUNIL KUMAR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW)-DPS-24, CPF ROLL NO.41202, UAN - 100262636063, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. ``` ``` 8K.P.MOIDEEN BAVA, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD-KUTTIPPURAM, DPS, DPS 24(LAW), CPF ROLL NO.4203, UAN 100181723833, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. ``` ``` 9C.V.MOHANAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD-KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW), DPS-26, CPF ROLL ``` ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` NO.41204, UAN - 100120551285, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 10T.AMEER ALI, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW), DPS-27, CPF ROLL NO.41205, UAN - 100386953784, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 11P.SURESH BABU, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW),-DPS-28, CPF ROLL NO.41206, UAN - 100262646026, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571 12N.HARI GOVINDAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW), DPS-37, CPF ROLL NO.41215, UAN - 100245629117, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 13T.DEVADASAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW), DPS-38, CPF ROLL NO.41216, UAN - 100387019761, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 14N.KUNHIPOCKER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW), DPS-39, CPF ROLL NO.41217, UAN - 100245699974, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 15C.KOYA, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW),DPS-41, CPF ROLL NO.41219, UAN – 100120320101 KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 16K.SUDARSANAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW), DPS-42, CPF ROLL NO.41220, UAN - 100182302741 KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. ``` ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` 17P.MANI, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW),DPS-43, CPF ROLL NO.41221, UAN - 100262066943 KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 18C.HAMZA, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW), DPS-51, CPF ROLL NO.41229, UAN - 100120284106 KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 19C.ABOOBACKER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW),DPS-52, CPF ROLL NO.41230, UAN - 100120204522 KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 20K.P.HAMZA, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW)-DPS-53, CPF ROLL NO.41231, UAN - 100181719259, KUTTIPPURAM (P.O.), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 21P.P.HAMZA, (PENSIONOR) PPO NO.KR/KKD/00066514, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI,FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW), DPS-54, CPF ROLL NO.41232, UAN- 100262205040, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571 22S.SULAIMAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS.55, CPF ROLL NO.41233, UAN - 100387399402, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 23K.K.MANOJ, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD .KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW), DPS-56, CPF ROLL NO.41234, UAN-1001812990424, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 24K.ABOOBACKER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, ``` ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS-57, CPF ROLL NO.41235, UAN - 100180876056, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 25M.K.HAMEED, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS-58, CPF ROLL NO.41236, UAN - 100208092472, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 26K.K.SUNIL KUMAR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW), DPS-59, CPF ROLL NO.41237, UAN - 100181311743, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571 27N.SIVADASAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW), DPS-65 (SARDAR), CPF ROLL NO.41243, UAN - 100246002833, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 28K.PRAKASAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW), DPS-68 (SARDAR), CPF ROLL NO.41246, UAN - 100181789349, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM DIST - 679 571. 29A.K.PRADEEP KUMAR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW),DPS-70(MONDAL), CPF ROLL NO.41248, UAN - 100069544272, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 30P.V.SAIDALAVI KOYA, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW),DPS-71, CPF ROLL NO.41249, UAN - 100262758532, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 31T.K.SURESH KUMAR, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW) DPS-72, CPF ROLL NO.41250, UAN - 100387089284, ``` ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## _`KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571.`_ ``` 32K.PRAVEESAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS-73, CPF ROLL NO.41251, UAN - 100181803362, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 33K.SURESH, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS-74, CPF ROLL NO.41252, UAN - 100182336690, KUTTIPPURAM (PO), MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 34P.AHAMMED KUTTY, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW) DPS-75, CPF ROLL NO.41253, UAN - 100261578324, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 35T.RAVEENDRAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS-77, CPF ROLL NO.41255, UAN - 100387298891, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 36E.SIVADASAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS-79, CPF ROLL NO.41257, UAN - 100144418417, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 37C.IBRAHIM, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS-81, CPF ROLL NO.41259, UAN - 100120287637, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 38C.RAJAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS-82 (MONDAL), CPF ROLL NO.41260, UAN - 100120438085, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571. ``` - _`39 P.MOHANAN,`_ ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS-83, CPF ROLL NO.412611, UAN - 100262092876, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 40P.AHAMMED KUTTY, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW) DPS-85, CPF ROLL NO.41236, UAN - 100261578311, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM -679571 41C.ABDURAHIMAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS(HLW) DPS-86, CPF ROLL NO.41264, UAN - 100120204243, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 42K.P.MOHIDEEN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DPS (HLW) DPS-87, CPF ROLL NO.41265, UAN - 100181723814, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 43C.SUNDARAN, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, DIPS (HLW) DPS-88, CPF ROLL NO.41266, UAN - 100120522374, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 44T.K.KOYAMU, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, ANCILARY LA BOUR-DPS-14(A/L), CPF ROLL NO.41282, UAN - 10038702184, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 571. 45K.K.VINOD, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, ANCTLARY LABOUR-DPS-16(A/L), CPF ROLL NO.41284, UAN-100181314867, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPAURAM - 679 571. 46C.P.KUNHIMOHAMMED, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, ANCTLARY LABOUR-DPS-17(A/L), CPF ROLL NO.41285, UAN-100120399676, ``` ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPAURAM - 679 571. ``` ``` 47P.MOHAMMED, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, FCI, FSD KUTTIPPURAM, ANCTLARY LABOUR-DPS-20(A/L), CPF ROLL NO.41287, UAN-100262088286, KUTTIPPURAM P.O., MALAPPAURAM - 679 571. 48UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 49FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, NO.1620, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 50THE GENERAL MANAGER (CPF)/SECRETARY, FCI CPF TRUST, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA 16-20, BARAKHAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI - 110 001. ``` ``` BY ADVS. PREMSANKAR R JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) K.KRISHNAKUMAR N.SATHEESH ``` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Amit Rawal, J.** ## 1. Assessee had approached the Single Bench vide W.P.(C)No.16408/2019 by claiming the following reliefs: - “(i) to declare that the petitioners are similarly situated as the petitioners in Exts. P1 judgment and are entitled to the same reliefs as allowed therein; - (ii) to declare that the petitioners are entitled to get pension on the basis of pensionable salary reckoned in accordance with their actual salary from the dates of their joining the Pension Scheme under the employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; - (iii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing 7[th] respondent to transfer such percentage of the employers contribution from the respective Provident Fund Account of the petitioners to their respective Employees Pension Fund with the arrears of contribution payable by them, based on their actual salary ie. Basic + DA, ignoring the ceiling prescribed in Paragraph 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, and directing respondents 2 to 5 to accept the same when thus transfer along with joint option; - (iv). to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to pay to the petitioners, pension reckoning their actual salary as pensionable with ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 10 ``` retrospective effect, accepting from the petitioners the excess amount of contribution they ought to have paid to the Pension Fund as contribution calculating the same on the basis of their actual salary. (v) to issue any other writ, declaration, order or direction appropriate in the circumstances of the case” 2. Learned Single Bench vide judgment dated 06.07.2020 allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer clauses (i) to (iv) by issuing direction to the respondents to do the needful within a period of four months. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Employees Provident Fund Organisation** v. **Sunil Kumar** [2022 (6) KLT 234 (SC)] wherein it has been held as follows: ## “ 44. 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 sub- ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 11 ``` 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. (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. ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 12 ``` 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 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 salary to the extent such salary exceeds `15,000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 13 ``` 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) (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.” 4. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents/petitioners do not deny this fact. In this view of the matter, judgment of the learned Single Bench is set ``` WA NO. 181 OF 2021 ``` ``` 14 ``` aside and the writ appeal is allowed in terms of the operative part of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extracted hereinabove. **Sd/-** **AMIT RAWAL JUDGE** **Sd/C.S. SUDHA JUDGE** nak