I Ve{qla Rajam v. drawing the higher pension of Rs.30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY PASUNOOR, SC FOR EPFO Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC W.P.NO: 39442OF 2018 Between: J -Retd.Rl-C K.Rajeswara Chary, S/o.Venkatanarayana, E-3'19510 Aged about gB years, Conductor, T.S.R.T.C., Godavarikhani Depot. Fl/o.Mulkanoor Occ, Village. Bheemadevarapally Mandal, Warangal (Urban) District. AND ...PETITIONER

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization. Regional/Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

2. The Assistanr Provident Fund Cbmmissioner (Pension) Sub-Regional Ofiice, Karimnagar.

3. The Chairmar and lvlanaging Director, T.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad. Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly. one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the higher pension to the petitioner on par with similarly situated persons viz., Praveen Kohli and others, lvho worked in Tourism Corporation of State of Haryana and drawing the higher pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension. as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 141 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension i,e Rs.30,5921 per month along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, by following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i in the case of R.C.Gupta and others Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2to pay higher pension of Rs.30,5921 along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY PASUNOOR, SC FOR EPFO Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC W.P.NO: 39464 OF 2018 r' ; Between: G.Ramulu, S/o.1'laiah, E-318558 Aged about 62 Driver, T.S.R.T.C., Huzurabad Depot, Rl/o. Mulkanoor Palli Mandal, Warangal (Urban) District. years, Occ- Retd.RTC Village, Bheemadevara . ...PETITIONER AND '1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional/Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

3. The Chairman and Managing Director, T.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, dectaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the higher pension to the petitioner on par with similarly situated persons viz., Praveen Kohli and others, who worked in Tourism Corporation of State of Haryana and drawing the higher pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension. as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 14'l of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension i.e. Rs.30,5921 per month along with arrears of difference of T t*.& pension to the petilioner, by following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.C Gupta and others Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC PASUNOOR, SC FOR EPFO W.P.NO: 39663 OF 2018 Between: M.Y.Reddy, Sio.Chandra Reddy. E-l07660 Aged about 65 years, Occ,, Retd.RTC Conductor, T.S.R.T.C., Huzurabad Depot. R/o. Bheemadevara Palli Village and Mandal, Warangal (Urban) District. ...PETITIONER AND

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) Sub-Regional Office, Organization, Regional/Sub-Regional Office. Karimnagar. Karimnagar.

3. The Chairmarr and Managing Director, T.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad. Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the higher pension to the petitioner on par with similady situated persons viz., Praveen Kohli and others, who worked in Tourism Corporation of State of Haryana and drawing the hither pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension. as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 141 af the constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension i.e.Rs.30,592/- per month along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, by following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R-C.Gupta and others Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension of Rs.30,5921 along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC PASUNOOR, SC FOR EPFO W.P.NO: 40062 OF 2018 Between: D.Jagan Mohan, S/o. Mallaiah, 13-109758, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Retd.RTC Driver, T.S.R.T.C. Huzurabad Depot. Fl/o. Koppur Village, Bheemadevara Pally Mandal, Warangal (Urban) District ...'ET'T'ONER AND

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional/Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar. 3; The Chairman and Managing Director, T.S.R.T.C.. Musheerabad- Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the higher pension to the petitioner on par with similarly situated persons viz Praveen Kohli and others, who worked in Tourism Corporation of State of Haryana and drawing the higher pension of Rs.30592 along with arrears of difference of pension as illegal. arbitrary, unconstitutional violative of Articles 14 and 141 of the /, ( I Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents '1 and 2 to pay higher pension i.e. Rs.30,592/- per month along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, by following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the caie 0f R.C.Gupta and others Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY PASUNOOR, SC FOR EPFO Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC t W.P.NO: 39416 OF 2018 Between: M.Lingaiah, S/o.Roshaiah, E-305117 Aged about 61 years, Occ. Retd. RES Squad, T.S.R.T.C., R.M.Office, Karimnagar, Rl/o.Mutharam Village, Bheemadevara Pally lVlandal, Warangal (Urban) District. AND ...PETiTIONER

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional/Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

2. The Assistanl Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

3. The Chairman and Managing Director, T.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the higher pension to the petitioner on par with similarly situated persons viz., Praveen Kohli and others, who worked in Tourism Corporation of State of Haryana and drawing the higher pension of Rs.30,5921 along with arrears of difference of pension. as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 141 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension i.e. Rs.30,592t per month along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, by following the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of R.C.Gupta and others Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY counser forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRr r.". '' -., HtBUH!,ts_:$ SR?Ir" Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC W.P.NO: 39425 OF 2018 Between: S.llaiah, S/o.Komaraiah, E-99932 Aged about 70 years, Occl. Retd. ADC, T.S.R.T.C. Jagityal Depot. Rl/o. IVlulkanoor Village, Bheemadevara Pally Mandal, warangal (Urban) District. ...PETIT|oNER AND

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional/Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Sub-Regional Office. Karimnagar.

3. The Chairman and Managing Director, T.S.R.T.C., Musheerahad. Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the higher pension to the petitioner on par with similady situated persons viz., Praveen Kohli and others, who worked in Tourism Corporation of State of Haryana and /, drawing the higher pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension. as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 141 ot the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents '1 and 2 to pay higher pension i.e. Rs.30,5921 per month along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, by following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.C.Gupta and others Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, pending disposal of. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC PASUNOOR, SC FOR EPFO W.P.NO: 39436 OF 2018 Between: P. Venkata []wamy, S/o. Komaraiah, E-304869 Aged about 60 years, Occ. Retd.RTC Driver, T.S.R.T.C., Huzurabad Depot, Rl/o.Bheemadevara Pally Village and Mandal, Warangal (Urban) District. ...'ETITIONER AND

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional/Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

2. The Assistanl Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

3. The Chairmar and Managing Director. T.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the higher pension to the petitioner on par with similarly situated persons viz., prave€n Kohli and others, who worked in Tourism Corporation of State of Haryana and drawing the higher pension of Rs.30,5921 along with arrears of difference of pension, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitution al, violative of Articles 14 and 141 of the bonstitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension i.e. Rs.30,592/- per month along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, by following the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in, the case of R.C.Gupta and others Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner. vending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI M.ADHUSUDHAN REDDY PASUNOOR, SC FOR EPFO Counsel for the Responderit No.3: SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC W.P.NO: 39438 OF 2018 Between: Mohd. Rahamatullah, S/o. Saheb Ali, E-94980 Aged about 65 years, Occ. Retd.RTC Conductor, Godavarikhani Depot, R/o. Kothapally Village, Bheema Devara Pally Mandal, District Warangal (Urban). ...'ET'T'ONER AND

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional/Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund Cbmmissioner (Pension), Sub-Regional Office, Karimnagar.

3. The Chairman and Managing Director, T.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS . Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not paying the higher pension to the petitioner on par with similarly situated persons viz., Praveen Kohli and others, who worked in Tourism Corporation of State of Haryana and drawing the higher pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 141 ot the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2lo pay higher pension i.e Rs.30,592/- per month along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, by following the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of R.C.Gupta and others Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, E-mployees Provident Fund Organization and others. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay higher pension of Rs.30,592/- along with arrears of difference of pension to the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC PASUNOOR, SC FOR EPFO The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION Nos.3944L. 39442, 59464,39663. 40062. 394t6. 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 u. Regional Protident Fwnd Cotnrnissionert.

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. '1zora; r+ scc soe c,-*

4. It is represented by learned counsel that the subject matter in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the orders dated O9.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.292B 1 of 2O 19 and, therefore, sarne orders may be passed in these writ petitions also.

5. A perusal of the order dated 09.O7 .2024 in W.P.No.292Bl of 2Ol9 would show that this Court disposed of the writ petition in the light of the judgment rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in R.C.Gupta (Supra|, bv directing as follows: "Fifty-four petitions bave beell filed by the employees themselves or on their behalf under. Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking invalidation of the not.ification dated 22"d August 2O14. The writ petitioners are mernbers of both exempted and unexempted establishmerts. We shall address these q,rit petitions as well in this judgment, as they involve the same questions of 1aw. We lind that notices are yet to be issued in w.P.(C) No.1356 of 2O2L, u/.P. (C) No.1379 of 2021, W.P. {C) No.767 of 2O21 and W.P. (C} No.477 of 2O2l but these petitions also involve the same questiors of law and the main respondeuts have participated in addressing us on these points. As such, these qrrit petitiors shall also be dea.lt with iu this judgment. We have also heard the intervenors, most of whom support the employees. Ir1 additiou, there are contempt petitions (Contempt petition (Cl Nos.1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (Cl No.619-620 of 2O19) it which implementatiotr of a judgment of this Court ia the case of R.C.Gupta aad others vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and other [(2O18) 14 SCC 8O9l delivered on 4tL October 2O16 has beea asked for, This judgment dealt with the question of entitleme[t of members of the pension scheme, whose pensionable saLary exceeded Rs.65OO/- per month to exercise option i! terms of proviso to paragraph J.l (3) of the seheme. Ia this judgment, a Diwision bench of this Corrrt repelled the conte[tion of the provideut fund authorities that the said proviso cortemplated exercise of optiotl within a specified time. The said proviso has been omitted by the amendEent of 2O14. Rs.65O/- qras the tnaximum pensionable salary prior to l* September 2O14. We shall discuss this judgment in greater detail later."

6. Accordingly, in terms of the orders dated

09.O7.2024 in W.P.No.292Bl of 2019, and for reasons a-like these writ petitions are also disposed oL No costs Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO T REGISTRAR ASS T //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER Karimnagar. Otq"n2;tion, Regional/Sub-Regional Office Karimnaqar'

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissio-ner' Employees Provident Fund '' , ihE ffi;;i;;i i;;rid ;;i#il'"c1'";i "6 3. i[; Ch;i*an and Managing Director, T S RT C 4. one cc to SRI sADLf d\'i'i'sflindifgp.o-y'^+dvocate toPLlq]- ---^ d. 6;; ac 6 sRt MADHU"su-DHAr'i nroov PASUNooR,sc FoR EPFo o. b,i" ct to sRl N.GHANDRA sEKHAR, sc FoR TSRTC [oPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies IOPUC] Gr ( Pensio"n )' S ub-Re g ion a I ofrice' Musheerabad' Hyderabad' ' \ To !sK;o o tss [[2p >4 \ -& HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 t I COMMON ORDER WP. Nos.39441 , 39442, 39464, 39663, 40062, 39416, 39425,39436 & 39438 ot 2018 rt*,''"''' $,E STATf ( 21 ltlll ?I]?i o o ,ir\ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS * DFJj!-Ar''r'