High Court

Legal Reasoning

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD1031 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.296 OF 2024 IN WP/14163/2023Dronavilli Sivaiah,Age 70 yrs., Occ. Retired,R/o Flat No.B/302, Vasanth Nagar,Poranki Krishana D.T. - 521 137.(Andhra Pradesh)… Petitioner… Versus …Ramesh Kumar,Age 45 yrs., Occ. Service,The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II,Regional Office of Employees Provident FundOrganization, Plot No.02, Town Centre,CIDCO, Aurangabad. … Respondent...Mr. N.D. Sonavane, Advocate for petitionerMr. N.K. Choudhari, Advocate for sole respondent...CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.DATE:10th DECEMBER, 2024ORDER :(PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)1Present petition is filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of 21031_CP_296_2024Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner is the original petitioner in Writ PetitionNo.14163 of 2023, wherein this Court has passed order on 07.11.2023. It isalleged that respondent has committed breach of order passed in the saidwrit petition. 2The fact under which the said writ petition was filed was thatpetitioner was in service with Indo German Tool Room, Aurangabad. Hestood retired on 31.03.2009 by superannuation. Employees Pension Scheme,1995 was applicable to him. On the date of his retirement his salary wasRs.9,990/- per month and deduction towards Provident Fund was on actualsalary and not on ceiling limit. After the retirement, monthly pension thatwas given to the petitioner was Rs.1,633/-. Petitioner had then applied torespondent to give monthly pension on the actual last drawn salary and thededuction thereon which is more than the ceiling limit. Respondentconsidered the case of petitioner in view of decision in R.C. Gupta vs.Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [(2018) 14 SCC 809] and, therefore,the pension was enhanced to Rs.13,353/- per month from Rs.1,633/- from01.04.2009. However, respondent without giving any opportunity of hearingreduced that pension and started payment with the old rate i.e. Rs.1,633/-and also directed petitioner to refund the excess difference by order dated29.10.2020. The said order was challenged by filing Writ Petition No.3725 of 31031_CP_296_20242021. This Court had then stayed the recovery by interim order dated25.02.2021 and clarified that till the disposal the respondent to pay originalpension payable to the petitioner. Writ petition was disposed of with thesimilar order by keeping the recovery in abeyance and remitted the matterback to respondent authorities to pass a fresh order after hearing thepetitioner. According to the petitioner, in the light of continuation of theinterim protection that order would merge in the final order and after finalorder would be passed the interim order will come to an end. Therespondent, however, refused to pay the enhanced pension and again passedthe order on 29.10.2020 maintaining the old order. Therefore, there isbreach of order passed. 3Heard learned Advocate Mr. N.D. Sonavane for petitioner andlearned Advocate Mr. N.K. Choudhari for sole respondent. Perused all orders.4This Court in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.21949 of 2020 (stated tobe similarly situated person) had passed following order :“1)…………2)…………3)Till then, recovery shall not be claimed by the respondentsfrom the petitioners pursuant to the impugned action. 41031_CP_296_20244)Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel submits that the originalpension that is prior to the enhancement of pension is being regularlypaid to the petitioners and is credited in their accounts. 5)Mr. Sonavane, learned counsel for the petitioners submits thatthe same is not paid to the petitioners on the ground recovery isclaimed. 6)We have stayed the recovery under the present order. Therewould be no impediment for the respondents to pay original pensionpayable to the petitioners. 7)Till the next date, the same shall be paid without prejudice tothe rights and contentions of either parties.”5In Writ Petition No.3725 of 2020 filed by the present petitionerorder came to be passed on 08.02.2023, whereby this Court disposed of thewrit petition by continuing the interim protection granted by Court topetitioner. The matter was relegated to the Provident Fund authority to passfresh order by giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Thereupon it appearsthat the respondent has informed the petitioner vide letter dated 06.12.2023that office order dated 15.09.2023 was passed in the light of directions ofHon’ble Supreme Court order dated 04.11.2023 and followed the directionsgiven by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2023 and further informed that nochanges were made in pension as a result of the office order dated15.09.2023. It can be seen that the opportunity was given to the petitioner 51031_CP_296_2024to put-forth his say. A detailed communication has been forwarded. Now,the question is – Whether there is contempt ? Affidavit-in-reply has beenfiled by respondent, wherein he has stated that the amount of pension @Rs.1,447/- is regularly paid to the petitioner. He has taken the factual noteas well as relies upon the relevant excerpts from R.C. Gupta (supra) andstated that neither the petitioner nor his employer had opted for and/ordeposited the amount of the contribution into the funds established as perthe provisions of the Act, 1952. He further relies upon the relevant excerptsfrom Employees’ Provident Fund Organization and another vs. Sunil KumarB. and others [AIR 2022 SC 5634] and stated that the scheme as it stoodbefore 01.09.2014 did not provide for any cut-off date and thus thosemembers shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) ofthe scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in thenature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also theamended paragraph No.11(4) of the Pension Scheme. There was uncertaintyas regards validity of the post amendment scheme. All the employees whohave not exercised option but were entitled to do so, however, could not dueto the interpretation of cut-off date by the authorities ought to have given afurther chance to exercise their option was the interpretation put forth byhim. The petitioner stood superannuated on 31.03.2009. Petitioner had nobasis whatsoever to claim the revision of the pension in the light of the said 61031_CP_296_2024Judgment. He submits that the petitioner has misinterpreted the orderpassed by this Court implying that the stay that the impugned order dated06.12.2023 purportedly directed to respondent to release the enhancedpension as is being claimed by the petitioner by way of the final relief. 6Thus, it is to be noted that what was stayed was the recovery ofthe alleged excess amount. Even as per the facts given in the writ petition aswell as this petition, the pension amount which was granted earlier wasrestored on 29.10.2020 by passing the specific order and it was specificallystated that “there would be no impediment for the respondents to payoriginal pension payable to the petitioners”. The original pension wasRs.1,633/- per month. The same was continued while disposing the petitionon 08.02.2023. In view of the directions given by this Court, after thecommunication was forwarded by respondent on 06.12.2023, fresh cause ofaction arose for the petitioner to challenge the same, if he was aggrieved.There was no question of coming to a conclusion that there is intentionalbreach of the order passed by this Court. Taking into consideration thesefacts there is no necessity to take any action under the Contempt of CourtsAct. Petition stands dismissed. (ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )agd