Ms. Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate, for & Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization etc. held that there & Ors.

Ms. Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.2. NAMIT KUMAR , J. (ORAL)

#1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to revise pension of the petitioner as per EPFO Rules and Government instructions issued from time to time especially letters issued by Employees Provident Fund Organisation in Circular No.Pension/2022/56259.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the service of Milkfed Plant, Bhattian, Khanna, as Lab Attendant on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2014 without exercising any option under para 11(3) of the pre-amended EPS-1995 and getting pension on wage ceiling. During his service, the petitioner along with his employer contributed to the Provident Fund @12% of their actual salary, which was consistently above the statutory wage ceiling of Rs.5,000/- and later Rs.6,500/- per month under the CWP-19884 of 2026 2 Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS), 1995 (for short ‘EPS’) was introduced w.e.f. 16.11.1995. As per the scheme, 8.33% of the employer’s contribution was diverted to the Pension Fund. The original paragraph No.11(3) of the EPS, limited the maximum pensionable salary to Rs.6,500/-. However, a proviso added w.e.f. 16.03.1996, allowed the members to contribute on higher wages, if the employer and employee exercised a joint option. The petitioner, although contributing on higher actual wages, did not formally exercise a joint option under the said proviso to paragraph No.11(3) during his service. Multiple High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, especially through judgment dated 04.10.2016 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016 titled as R.C. Gupta and others etc. etc. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization and others etc. held that there is no cut-off date for exercise of such option and deposit/contribution on actual salary entitles members to higher pension, subject only to return of amounts withdrawn, if any. Following R.C. Gupta’s case (supra), respondent-EPFO issued a circular dated

23.03.2017 permitting implementation of higher pension based on contributions exceeding the ceiling.

#3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-5378-2024 titled as Inderjit Singh Kaknian and others Vs. Union of India and others, decided on CWP-19884 of 2026 3

12.09.2024, in which ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta’s case (supra) has been discussed in detail and this Court has negated the specific argument raised by the petitioner regarding exercising of option prior to 01.09.2014. Thereafter, in CWP-6500 of 2020 titled as Rohtash Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 03.10.2024, learned counsel for the respondent has taken identical stand that the judgment passed in R.C. Gupta’s case (supra) would not be applicable to the petitioners therein, as the Department had not accepted their option in terms of paragraph No.11(3) of EPS, because during their service, they had not exercised the option and had admittedly retired in the year 2018. As such, this Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that the respondent had accepted the option of most of the employees and rejected the cases of few retirees. Further, the department indulged into cherry picking and at one point of time, they had issued instructions in the year 2017, in which they sought options from the retirees in terms of the judgment passed in R.C. Gupta’s case (supra). For the reasons best known to the respondents, they had withdrawn the instructions issued in the year 2017.

#4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner submits that admittedly, the petitioner retired prior to 01.09.2014 and he had not exercised option under para No.11(3) of the Pre-Amendment Scheme. The employees, who had retired in these circumstances, are not eligible for the benefits under this CWP-19884 of 2026 4 scheme. A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Employees Provident Fund Organization and another etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. and others etc., 2022 INSC 1171, had categorically held in clause(v) of para No.44 that the employees, who had retired prior to

01.09.2014 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. Some of the employees, who had retired prior to 01.09.2014, had filed Misc. Application No.2162 of 2022 in WP (C) No.874 of 2018 titled as Association of Former Executives of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HALE) and others etc. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization and others etc., with regard to clarification of para No.44(v). The said application has been registered as IA No.194149 of 2022 in M.A No.2162 of 2022 in WP(C) No.874 of 2018 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the same on 07.08.2023 and further this issue came to be considered before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.97 of 2025 titled as Powergrid Retired Employees’ Association (PREA) Vs. Union of India and others, which stands decided on 19.03.2025, wherein it was again reiterated that the employees, who retired prior to 01.09.2014 without exercising their option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme, are not entitled to the benefits of pension scheme.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. CWP-19884 of 2026 5

#6. The petitioner admittedly retired from service prior to

01.09.2014 without exercising any option envisaged under para 11(3) of the pre-amended EPS-1995. The question whether such an employee is entitled to benefit of higher pension is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Powergrid Retired Employees’ Association’s case (supra) and in Sunil Kumar’s case (supra) has held that employees who retired before 2014 amendment (which came into effect from

01.09.2014), without exercising the stipulated option, are deemed to have exited the scheme and are not entitled to its benefits, which have been followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of petitions decided on 24.09.2025 being CWP-35154 of 2024 – Om Parkash and others v. Union of India and others as leading case. The decision in Om Parkash’s case (supra) has been followed in CWP- 32035 of 2025 – Ram Nath and others v. Union of India and others, decided on 30.10.2025 wherein similar claim raised by similarly situated persons has been rejected and the said judgment dated

30.10.2025 has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA- 3764 of 2025 – Ram Nath and others v. Union of India and others, decided on 24.12.2025.

#7. In view of the above, present petition is hereby dismissed.

14.07.2026 R.S. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether Reportable: Yes/No Yes/No