Please read the attached merged documents very carefully & word by word.
Hon’ble Supreme Court had decided all the 10 tagged SLP’s in 2016 (Seven on 31st March, 2016, One on 12th July 2016 & Two on 4th Oct 2016) wherein the issue regarding fixation of cut-off date of 01.12.2004 (letter issued vide no. 4(38)/96/WB/59867 dt 01.12.2004) for not accepting options under Para 11(3) for determination of pensionable salary exceeding the statutory wage ceiling of Rs. 5,000 / 6,500 was agitated and in all these cases, it was decided that EPFO’s decision to fix cutoff date was without jurisdiction and hence non filing the joint option under Para 11(3) was held to be not a valid ground to deny the benefit of Para 11(3) of EPS’95.
Details of aforesaid 10 SLP's have been tabulated in one of the attached four documents for ready reference
Seven (7) SLPs dismissed on 31.03.2016 related to exempted as well as unexempted establishments upholding the decision to allow exercising the option under para 11(3) and payment of differential amount for revision of pension on actual salary.
VERY IMPORTANT
In one (1) of the above 10 SLP’s - 19954 of 2015 wherein all the petitioners were retirees and without exercising any option had been contributing towards Provident Fund on their actual salary during their service, had been dismissed on 12.07.2016 in Austin Joseph C. & Ors case. Thus, the decision of KHC was upheld that retirees who had been contributing in PF on actual salary were eligible for revision of pension on actual salary subject to return of differential amount alongwith interest.
Attention of Hon'ble SC may be drawn towards the document dt. 24.09.2020 (Letter of ACC Trivandrum to EPFO/HQ) wherein the advocate of EPFO on the very next day (13.07.2016) of the decision (12.07.2016) had informed the EPFO as under:
“...We had argued that the present case was distinct from the cases previously dismissed as in the present case the employees had already retired and never exercised the option as required under Proviso 11(3). We also tried to put forth that language used in said Proviso makes is evident that the option can be exercised by person only during the tenure of his services. However, the Hon'ble Court was not convinced and dismissed the petition.”
Thus, the issue regarding exercise of option under para 11(3) of EPS-95 by the retirees who were contributing towards Provident Fund on their actual salary had been deliberated upon by the SC and after disagreeing with the arguments of EPFO, the same had been dismissed by SC and as such the issue has already been finally settled, implemented and attained finality.
CLICK BELOW LINK TO DOWNLOAD FULL DOCUMENT
M
Posts
 of EPS'95 after retirement){kind=link}
0 Comments