AI Insights
The case involves a writ petition filed by a group of petitioners challenging certain notifications and amendments related to the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioners sought to quash the Notification No.G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22.08.2014 and the Employees' Pension (Fifth Amendment) Scheme, 2016, arguing that these were arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of India. They also requested directions to recalculate their pensionable salary and to stop additional contributions on higher salaries. The respondents, including the Union of India and the Employees Provident Fund Organization, defended the amendments and notifications. The court considered the precedents set by the Supreme Court in similar cases, particularly focusing on the directions given in the case of Sunil Kumar, which addressed similar issues of pension recalculation and contributions.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 815506 (HC-KARNATAKA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Others
Pronouncement Date
04-08-2023
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION No.27177/2019 (L-PF) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C. RAMANAIK AGED 61 YEARS S/O CHATHRA NAIK SIDDESHWARA NILAYA, 2 ND CROSS, NEHRU NAGARA, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 2. SMT. R. GEETHA AGED 61 YEARS W/O NAGARAJU DOOR NO 20, 2ND CROSS, V.P. EXTENTION, NEAR MARUTHI GAS AGENCIES, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 3. SRI. P.J. RENUKA PRASAD AGED 60 YEARS S/O LATE P.H. JAYAPPA SHANTHINIKETHANA NILAYA, JOGIMATTI ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 4. SRI. H. RAMA CHANDRAPPA AGED 60 YEARS S/O SANNA HANUMAPPA SRI MARUTHI NILAYA, BEHIND CHETHANA SCHOOL, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 5. SRI. K.T. RAVIKUMAR REDDY AGED 60 YEARS - 2 - S/O LATE K.THIPPA REDDY KADABANAKATTE (POST) - 577 517, TURUVANUR (HOBALI), CHITRADURGA (TALUK & DISTRICT). 6. KUMARI. GEETHMANI AGED 59 YEARS D/O S.V.ANANTH CHAR CHAITANYA NILAYA, 2 ND CROSS, V.P. EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 7. SRI. R.C. DIWAKAR AGED 58 YEARS S/O CHANDRA REDDY SREE RAMAKRUPA, MITRA LAYOUT, VIDYANAGARA, BEHIND PANCHAYAT OFFICE, MEDEHALLI, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 8. SMT. H.R. CHANDRIKA AGED 54 YEARS W/O LATE K.S. SATHYANARAYANA RAO NO.4, ”PAVANADHAMA”, 1ST FLOOR, 2 ND CROSS, SARVABHOMA NAGAR, CHIKKALASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 061. 9. SRI. J.V. MUKUNDA RAO AGED 58 YEARS S/O LATE J. VIJAYENDRA CHAR KASHYAPPA DHARMASHALA ROAD, NEAR UTTARADHI MUTT, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 10. SRI. R. C. NAGARAJA AGED 58 YEARS S/O R. CHANDRA SHEKARA SETTY 66-5, SUPRABHA NILAYA, HOLALKERE ROAD, MEKKA MASJID STREET, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. - 3 - 11. SRI. K. MARUTHIRAM AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE K.VENKATA SWAMY MARUTHIRAM STORES, DHARMASHALA ROAD, OPPOSITE MEGHA LODGE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 12. SRI. K.GURURAJA AGED 57 YEARS S/O LATE K.R. KRISHNA MURTHY 1431/A, DHARMASHALA ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 13. SRI. H.B. RAVIKUMAR AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVAIAH 164, SHANTHI NIVASA, TEACHERS COLONY, NEAR AMRUTHA AYURVEDIC COLLEGE, MULEMANE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 14. SRI. NEELAPPA MALAGI AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE KALINGAPPA MALAGI BASAPPA COMPLEX, BEHIND BESCOM, HOLALKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 15. SRI. M.R.PRAKASH AGED 56 YEARS S/O LATE M. RAMA REDDY GUDDADA RANGAVANAHALLY, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 16. SRI. M. GIRIYAPPA AGED 55 YEARS S/O LATE G. MALLAPPA 125, MADAKARI PURA (POST) - 577 524, CHITRADURGA (TALUK & DISTRICT). 17. SRI. M.NAGARAJ AGED 55 YEARS S/O LATE MALLAPPA - 4 - GOPALPURA ROAD, OPPOSITE PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 18. SRI. V.N.DAYANANDA AGED 55 YEARS S/O LATE V.NAGAPPA 539B, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, 4 TH CROSS, J.C.R. EXTENTION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 19. SRI. N.V.RAMESH KUMAR AGED 54 YEARS S/O LATE N.V.VEERANARAYANA SHETTY KAVERI NIVASA, JOGIMATTI, MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE ARALI MARA, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 20. SRI. E.VIJAYA KUMAR AGED 54 YEARS S/O ETAGI KOTRA BASAPPA SAMSKRUTHI NILAYA, CHANNABASAPPA COMPOUND, JOGIMATTI ROAD, 2 ND CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 21. SRI. M.T. SATYANARAYANA AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE M.T.THIPPA REDDY THE MERCHANTS SOUHARDA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA, R.M.C.BRANCH, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 22. SMT. S.N.VANI AGED 53 YEARS W/O V.R.MANJUNATHA BEHIND P.V.S. HOSPITAL, ABYUDAYA NILAYA, 7TH CROSS (EAST), J.C.R. EXTENTION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 23. SRI. Y.S. SATYANARAYANA SETTY AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE SUBBARAYA SETTY - 5 - JOGIMATTI MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 24. SRI. V. SRINIVAS AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA SIHI NEERINA HONDA ROAD, BURUJANAHATTY, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 25. SRI. T. ERANNA AGED 53 YEARS S/O LATE K.THIPPESWAMY SRI GURU, S.R. LAY OUT, 4TH CROSS, VIDHYANAGAR, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 26. SRI. RAVINDRANATHA TAGUR AGED 52 YEARS S/O K.N.RAMA REDDY SHALINI SADHANA, S.R.LAY OUT, 3RD CROSS, VIDHYANAGARA, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 27. SRI. M.K. SATYANARAYANA REDDY AGED 52 YEARS S/O M.H. KESHAVA REDDY VARSHA DHARE, SHANKARA LAL LAY OUT, BEHIND EXTENTION, POLICE STATION, NH 4, NEAR SAROJA BAI KALYANA MANTAPA, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 28. SRI. R.NAGARAJA AGED 51 YEARS S/O M.D. RAMANAIK HOSA LAMBANI HATTI, MADAKARIPURA (POST) - 577 524, CHITRADURGA (TALUK &DISTRICT). 29. SRI. B.H.THIPPESWAMY AGED 51 YEARS S/O LATE BAJJE HANUMANTHAPPA NO.50, HARSHA NILAYA, - 6 - BANK COLONY, TURUVANUR ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 30. SRI. R. PRAKASH AGED 51 YEARS S/O R. RANGASWAMY MADAKARI PURA (POST) - 577 524, CHITRADURGA (TALUK & DISTRICT). 31. SRI. K. ASHOK AGED 51 YEARS S/O LATE K.R. KASTURAPPA BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, 2ND MAIN, 4 TH CROSS, PILLEKARENA HALLY, STATION ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 32. SRI. M. NAGARAJ AGED 51 YEARS S/O LATE MURU KANNAPPA VYBHAVA NILAYA, KELAGOTE, NEAR CHANNAKESHWARA PURA TEMPLE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501 33. SRI. D.J.GURURAJA AGED 51 YEARS S/O LATE D. JAGANATHAPPA C/O DEEPAK MEDICALS, D.S.HALLY (POST) - 577 524, CHITRADURGA (TALUK & DISTRICT). 34. SRI. N.G.VEERESH KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O N.G. RUDRAPPA PRAKASH NILAYA, MAIN ROAD, SARASWATHI NILAYA, CHITRADURG - 577 501. 35. SRI. K. RUDRESH NAIK AGED 50 YEARS S/O KRISHA NAIK DODDIGANAL HOSAHATTI, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. - 7 - 36. SRI. MANJUNATHA SWAMY AGED 49 YEARS S/O LATE K.R. HARISH CHANDRA NAIK, SAMPATH BABU NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, MUNCIPAL COLONY, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 37. SRI. K. KUMAR NAIK AGED 49 YEARS S/O KARIYA NAIK MADAKARI PURA (POST) - 577 524, CHITRADURGA (TALUK & DISTRICT). 38. SMT. P.J. BHARATHI AGED 48 YEARS W/O ERANNA SRI GURU , S.R. LAY OUT, 4TH CROSS, VIDHYANAGAR, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 39. SRI. K.R. MALLIKARJUNA AGED 47 YEARS S/O M. RUDRAPPA SRI SHAYLA, 1ST MAIN, 2 ND CROSS, B.V.K.S. LAY OUT, BHEEMASAMUDRA ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 40. SRI. L.M. UMESHA AGED 47 YEARS S/O MUKUNDA REDDY LINGAVARA HATTY, DODDASIDAVVANA HALLY, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 41. SRI. L.S. RANGASWAMY AGED 46 YEARS S/O K.SHIVAPPA 6 TH CROSS, DHAVALAGIRI BADAVANE, H.L.K.ROAD, BEHIND S.J.M.COLLEGE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 42. SRI. K. SATISHBABU AGED 46 YEARS - 8 - S/O Y. KRISHNA REDDY SUVARNA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 2 ND CROSS, S. B. LAY OUT, VIDHYA NAGARA, CHITRADURGA -577 501. 43. SRI. M. SHAMBULINGAIAH AGED 45 YEARS S/O LATE MADAIAH 1/107- MAHADESHWARA NILAYA, GARE HATTY, STATION ROAD, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 44. SRI. P.V. VITTALA AGED 44 YEARS S/O P.VASUDEVA REDDY VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE, MARADIHALLI, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 45. SMT. T.R. GEETHA REDDY AGED 44 YEARS W/O LATE PANDU RANGA REDDY THE MERCHANTS SOUHARDHA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA, R.M.C.YARD BRANCH, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 46. SRI. N.RAJU AGED 42 YEARS S/O P. NAGAPPA. L.I.G.44, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, C.K.PURA, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. 47. SRI. H.N. THYRAMALLESHWARA AGED 42 YEARS S/O H.K.NAGARAJAPPA PALAVVANA HALLI POST - 577 532, HIRIYUR (TALUK), CHITRADURGA (DISTRICT). 48. SRI. D.S.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED 41 YEARS, S/O D. SIDDARAMAPPA - 9 - BESIDE GUNNAMBIKA TEMPLE, BURUJANA HATTI, CHITRADURGA – 577 501. 49. SRI. S.SHAHIDHARA AGED 38 YEARS S/O.LATE SRINIVASA SIDDARAMA CIRCLE, BURUJANA HATTI, CHITRADURGA – 577 501. 50. SRI. A.SANTHOSH AGED 28 YEARS S/O. K. ANANDA BABU REDDY LIG, B-10, KHB 5TH BLOCK, BHUVANESHWARI CIRCLE, MUNICIPAL COLONY KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA – 577 501. ... PETITIONERS NOTE: THE PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 5 ARE ALL NOT CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZENS. (BY SRI ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADVOCATE) AND : 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 001. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, 14 - BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110 066. REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (CPFC). 3. THE REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER-I ZONAL OFFICE, HUBLI ZONE, EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, - 10 - BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NEW BLOCK NO 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI - 580 025. 4. THE REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER-I REGIONAL OFFICE, KALABURAGI EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, ALAND ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 101. 5. THE REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE, BALLARI, EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, III FLOOR, S.L.V.TOWERS, PARVATHINAGAR MAIN ROAD, BALLARI - 583 103. 6. THE MERCHANTS SOUHARDHA SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA, ADMINISRATIVE OFFICE, SANTHEPETE, CHITRADURGA – 577 501, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. ... RESPONDENTS (BY DSG FOR R-1; SMT. NANDITA HALDIPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-5; R-2 AND R-6 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.G.S.R. 609(E) DATED 22.08.2014 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO THE WRIT PETITION AS BEING ARBITRARY AND ULTRA VIRES CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND CONSEQUENTLY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11/07/2023 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 11 - ORDER The petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs: “a) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification bearing No.G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22.08.2014 issued by Respondent No.1 at “Annexure D” to the Writ Petition as being arbitrary and ultra vires Constitution of India and consequently; b) Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Employees’ Pension (Fifth Amendment) Scheme, 2016 (2016 Amendment), published in the Gazette of India: Extraordinary bearing No.454 [Part II-Sec.3(i)] vide Notification No.G.S.R. 657(E) dated 01.07.2016 as per Annexure-E issued by Respondent No.1; c) As a consequence of the Notification dated 22.08.2014 at Annexure – ‘D’ being quashed, as per Prayer (a), an appropriate direction in the nature of Mandamus to be issued to Respondent No.1 to 5 to accept the difference in the contribution over and above the ceiling salary and thereby, determine, calculate and fix the pensionable salary in respect of each of the Petitioners on the basis of contributions made on actual salary even for the purpose of releasing pension, together with arrears with interest - 12 - from the date the Petitioners have exited the Pension Scheme; d) Consequent upon the quashing Notification bearing No.G.S.R.609(E) dated 22.08.2014 issued by Respondent No.1 at Annexure - D, to forebare Respondent No.1 to 5 from collecting additional contribution of 1.16% from its members on the higher contribution made by the members to the extent of contribution made exceeding the ceiling salary, w.e.f. 16.11.1995 or from the date from which the salary exceeded the ceiling salary till the date of exit from the Pension Scheme in respect of each of the Petitioners; e) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 5 to calculate the pensionable salary on the basis of the average pay (basic salary + DA and including arrears) paid or payable for a period of 12 months prior to the Petitioners exiting the Pension Scheme and not on the basis of the average pay of 60 months prior to the exit from the Pension Scheme pursuant to Annexure – ‘D’ Notification dated 22.08.2014; f) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondents No.1 to 5 to henceforth notify any proposed changes or amendments to the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 inviting objections - 13 - from the members, consider the objections if any and thereafter to finalize the changes and amendments to the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.” 2. Heard Sri. Abhinav Ramanand .A, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Nandita Haldipur, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in R.C. Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809 [R.C. Gupta] vide order dated 04.10.2016, the respondents are not granting the legitimate entitlements of pension to the petitioners on higher salary. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Apex Court in the case of the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar .B and Ors. Etc., reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1521 [Sunil - 14 - Kumar] has issued certain directions on the basis of which, the pension amount has to be recalculated and the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court. 5. The Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case stated supra has issued certain directions, which reads as under: “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 subparagraphs. (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. - 15 - (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 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. - 16 - 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 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. - 17 - (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. - 18 - (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.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.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that prayer in the petition at (a), (b) and (d) are covered as per the directions of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case, whereas, prayer Nos.(c), (e) and (f) are not covered. 7. In prayer Nos.(c), (e) and (f), the petitioners have sought direction to respondent No.1 to 5 to take into consideration, the arrears of salary including D.A. etc., for the purpose of determination of pensionable salary and calculation of pension. The prayers sought at the said paragraphs is nothing but recalculation of pensionable - 19 - amount and the same is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra, wherein at paragraph No.36 it is held as under: “36. The other aspect of the controversy involves changing the method of computation of the pensionable salary. We have given the points and counter points articulated by the contesting parties pertaining to this feature of the controversy earlier in this judgment. In our opinion, this change of methodology comes within the power of the Central Government to modify a scheme under Section 7 of the 1952 Act read with item 10 of the Schedule III to the Act as also paragraph 32 of the scheme. This alteration of computation is ancillary to determination of scale of pension alongwith pensionary benefits and paragraph 32 of the pension scheme specifically authorises the Central Government to alter the rate of contribution payable under the Scheme or the scale of any benefit admissible under the scheme. There is a reasonable basis for effecting change in the computation methodology for determining pensionable salary and we do not find any illegality or unconstitutionality in effecting this amendment.” 8. The Apex Court has held in the said para that a change of methodology comes within the power of the - 20 - Central Government to modify a Scheme under Section 7 of 1952 Act read with item No.10 of Schedule III of the Act as also para No.32 of the Pension Scheme. 9. In light of the same, it would be appropriate, if this Court directs the petitioner/s to give representation/s to the pension authorities to recalculate the pension in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in Sunil Kumar’s case stated supra. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner/s to submit representation/s to the respondent-authorities and if such representation is/are made, respondent-authorities to consider the same, in light of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar stated supra, in accordance with law. SD/- JUDGE MBM "
Other Referred Cases
R.C. Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others, Employees Provident Fund Organization and Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar .B and Ors. Etc.
Laws Referred To
Constitution of India
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
Guide to Charitable Trusts: Formation, Benefits, and Compliance
₹0
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
Stress Management policy Letter
₹0
Research Collaboration Agreement
₹0
Budget 2026: 5 Major Personal Tax Changes Every Taxpayer Must Know
Team Counselvise - February 05, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Why Meesho got ₹1,500 Crore Tax Demand ?
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026