2. In this judgment, we shall deal with the legality of certain amendments and modifications made by the Central Government to the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (“1995 Scheme”). Such scheme has been made in pursuance of, interalia, Section 6A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“the Act”). Such changes, interalia, are sought be effected in paragraphs 3, 6, 11, 12 and 14 of the 1995 scheme. The Act originally did not provide for any pension scheme and Section 6A was introduced to the said Act by way of an amendment made in 1995. The amendment of 1995 contemplated formulation of a scheme for employees’ pension and the pension fund was to comprise of deposit of 8.33 per cent of the employers’ contribution made towards provident fund corpus as per the prevailing Statue.
2. Paragraph 11 of the scheme dealt with determination of pensionable salary. At that point of time, maximum pensionable salary was Rs.5000/ and this sum had been enhanced subsequently to Rs.6500/. Pensionable salary was raised to Rs.15000/ by a notification dated 22nd August 2014 [numbered G.S.R. 609 (E)], which was to be effective from 1st September 2014. This notification brought certain other modifications in the scheme mainly restricting its coverage and we shall discuss these modifications later in this judgment.
3. In the appeals before us, judgments of the High Courts of Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi are assailed. In the case of P. Sasikumar & Others vs. Union of India (UOI) Represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India Ministry of Labour & Department of Employment and Others [in Writ Petition (C) No. 13120 of 2015], a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in its judgment delivered on 12th October 2018 set aside the Employees’ Pension Amendment (Scheme), 2014 conceived in G.S.R. 609 (E). The Delhi High Court in its judgment delivered on 22nd May 2019 in the case of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. [in Writ Petition (C) No. 5678 of 2018] followed the view expressed by the Kerala High Court and quashed a circular issued by the provident fund authorities on 31st May 2017 precluding exempted establishments from the benefits of higher pension. In a decision delivered on 28th August 2019 in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Jale Singh and Others [in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 436 of 2019] a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court also expressed the same opinion. Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 3289 of 2021, SLP (C) No. 3290 of 2021, SLP (C) No. 2465 of 2021 and SLP (C) No. 3287 of 2021 are directed against the aforesaid judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and a subsequent decision of a Bench of equal strength delivered on 24th September 2019 in the same line. The appeals originating from SLP (C) Nos. 1506315064 of 2022 are against the judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered on 22nd May 2019, whereas in appeals having their roots in SLP (C) No. 1366 of 2021, SLP (C) No. 1738 of 2021, judgments of the Delhi High Court delivered following the case of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh (supra) have been assailed. In another judgment delivered by the same Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [in Writ Petition (C) No. 602 of 2015] on the same day, i.e. 12th October 2018, the aforesaid notification of 22nd August 2014 was invalidated. That judgment is under challenge in the appeals in connection with SLP (C) Nos. 1672116722 of 2019. In a contempt action brought before the Kerala High Court by aspiring beneficiaries of the pension scheme for implementation of the directions issued in the judgment dated 12th October 2018, certain directions have been issued by the Kerala High Court. The judgment to that effect delivered on 6th November 2020 is impugned in SLP (C) No. 8547 of 2021.
4. Fiftyfour writ 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. 19171918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 619620 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.6500/ was the maximum pensionable salary prior to 1st September 2014. We shall discuss this judgment in greater detail later.
Click Here to Download Complete pdf Copy of Final Order
45. 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.
46. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
47. There shall be no order as to costs.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CJI.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . J.
(SUDHANSHU DHULIA)
NEW DELHI;
November 04, 2022
Posts
0 Comments