Others v. Central Board Of Trustee Employees Fund Organization New Delhi And

2. By means of all connected writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the denial of the payment of higher pension on their joint option and further, a writ petition of mandamus has been sought, to approve the joint option of the petitioners submitted before the respondents and to make payment of enhanced pension in terms of the judgment and order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of EPFO versus Sunil Kumar B. and others reported in 2023 12 SCC 701.

3. The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that all the petitioners are retired employees of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division (hereinafter referred to as 'HAL'), and while discharging their duties on different posts, they have been superannuated and are getting pension. He submitted that the HAL is the public sector undertaking, which functions under the administrative control of Ministry of Defense, Government of India, therefore, the writ petitions on behest of the petitioners being the employee of the HAL is maintainable. Further submission is that in paragraph 26(6) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme 1952'), the contribution limit was Rs.3,500/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- and again to rupees Rs. 6,500/- and lastly to Rs.15,000/- and as per the clause 11(3) of The Employee's Pension Scheme,1995(hereinafter, referred to as 'Scheme 1995), the maximum pensionable salary was limited to Rs.5,000/-, which reached up to Rs.15,000/- with effect from 01.09.2014. He added that in accordance with 4 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 the Act 1952 read with the scheme 1952 & 1995, a trust was formulated in the name of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited(Lucknow Division) Employees Provident Fund Trust(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'), wherein, the provisions for contribution by employee/employer, to the provident fund, has been provided, in the Rules 20.1 to 20.2.1 of the 'Trust' made under the provisions of Act 1952, which reads as under:- "20.1 Every member shall subscribe to the Fund every month sum equal to 12% of his monthly running Basic Pay, DA and retaining allowance if any (without limit in Every member shall subscribe to the Fund every month sum equal to 12% of his Pay), equal contribution payable by the company to the Fund of members (for P.T only). 2011 A member may, however, ut his option contribution at any rate higher than statutory rate of his pay but the company's contribution shall remain as under paragraph 20.1.

10.1.2 The exercise of option under sub-paragraph 20.1.1. to alter the rate of contribution. shall ordinarily become effective from 1th of April following, subject to the approval of the Chairman

20.1.3 The contribution shall be rounded off to the nearest rupee Le. 50 paise or more to be taken as next higher rupee and anything less than 50 paise is ignore.

20.1.4 The contribution of the members shall be recoverable by means of deduction from the wages of the members.

20.1.5 No subscription shall be recovered from an employce for such period, as he is absent from duties without pay.

20.2 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUND The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contribution payable to the Provident Fund by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the Act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of section 7Q. of the Act for any delay in payment of nay dues towards the Board of Trustees,

20.2.1 Out of Company's Contribution 8.33% of member's wages subject to a maximun of Rs. 6500.00 of eligible members shall be diverted to Member's Pension Contribution and shall be remitted to The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner U.P. within 15 days of the close of every month. The cost of remittance shall he born by the employer provided that where the pay of the member exceeds Rs. 6500/- per month, the balance of the employer contribution shall be credited to the member's individual account the establishment is not liable to make any contribution in respect of voluntary contribution. The contribution of employees pension fund shall be applicable only in case if the employee is a member of employees pension scheme 1995."

4. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that the petitioners herein are the members of 'the trust' admittedly and in the rules of 'the trust' it is provided 5 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 that every member shall subscribe to the fund every month, equal to 12% of his monthly running basic pay and equal contribution payable by the Company to the fund of members, whereas, rule 20.2.1 provides that out of Company's contribution, 8.33% of members wages, subject to maximum of Rs.6,500/- of eligible members shall be diverted to members pension contribution and shall be remitted to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P. every month. He argued that the limit of contribution has been prescribed in the rules of 'the trust.'

5. Further submission is that the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 has been made in-pursuance of Section 6A of Act 1952 and paragraph no 3, 6, 11, 12, and 14 of the scheme 1995, the subject matter is enumerated, whereas, the act originally did not provide for any pension scheme and it was by inserting Section 6A by way of an amendment, in the year 1995. He submitted that the amendment of 1995, it is mentioned that the pension fund was to comprise of deposit of 8.33% of the employees' contribution made towards the provident fund corpus as per the prevailing statute and paragraph 11 of the scheme deals with the determination of pensionable salary.

6. He submitted that time and again, the issue was raised and in certain judgments and orders of various High Courts, the Employee Pension Amendment Scheme 2014 was set aside and matter ultimately went before the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the joint option of contribution in case of EPFO(supra), wherein, along with the other connected SLPs, were decided by a common order on 04.11.2022, wherein, following directions have been passed:- "44. We accordingly hold and direct: (i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent sub- paragraphs. (ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted 6 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed. (il) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1 September 2014. will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. (iv) Th The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1™ September 2014 stands crystallized in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1 September 2014 did not provide for any cut-off date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment scheme, which, was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with. (v) The employees who had retired prior to 1 September 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. (vi) The employees who have retired before 1 September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014. (vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs. 15000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees contribution shall be as stop gap measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made. (viii) Will We do not find any flow in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary. (ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta 7 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre-amendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said Judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph. (x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms."

7. He submitted that the Apex Court has held that the notification no. G- GSR609(E) dated 22/8/2014 shall apply to the employees of exempted establishment under section 17 of the 'Act 1995', in the same manner as the employees of regular establishment and it was further held that the members of the scheme, who did not exercise option as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme(as it was before 2014 amendment) would also be entitled to exercise upon options in-terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme as it stands at present. In this view, the controversy has been put to rest that those who have not given their option shall also be entitled to give the option, subsequently. He next submitted that so far as the second set of controversy is concerned that is regarding the limit, which is prescribed under the rules of 'the trust,' which limits the contribution to 12% of the monthly running basic pay, which has also been dealt with by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in Case of D.Chandirasegar and others versus Union of India passed in Writ Petition MD No. 29573 to 29578 of 2014, along with the other connected petitions. Before the Madras High Court, the retired employees of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichi challenged the order of EPFO, wherein, the EPFO had recalled the demand notice issued by them for payment of contribution, along with the applicable interest for higher pension and further the challenge laid to the circular issued by EPFO on 18.01.2025, wherein, the exempted establishments were not permitted to amend the trust rules retrospectively. The trust, which have been formulated deriving the power under the Act 1952, is identically applicable to the present petitioners as well as the petitioners who are the employees of BHEL. He submitted that HAL is an establishment exempted under section 17 of the Act 1952 and the provident fund scheme is being conducted by 'the trust' made under the Act 1952, whereas, the terms and 8 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 conditions of the exemptions are governed with the Appendix-A read with paragraph 27-AA of the scheme 1952 and they are also continue to be governed by statutory employee pension scheme 1995. He submitted that the scheme is more beneficial than the provisions of 'the trust rules', so far as the provident fund scheme is concerned. He concluded that vide the aforesaid judgment, the quietus is given to the controversy regarding the fact that which provisions will be undertaken for the purposes of contribution, that is either provided in the employees provident fund scheme or in 'the trust' rule, whereupon, the scheme has been given priority upon the trust rule as the same is more beneficial, therefore, submission is that the denial by the authorities for joint option, as well as for undertaking the proceedings as per the Provident Fund Scheme, is unjustified and against the settled provisions of law, thus, the submission is that the impugned order may be set aside.

8. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the HAL submits that in fact the HAL is employer and the same is abide by the provisions of Act 1952 as well as the scheme made there under. He further submitted that HAL has no objection if the joint option is permitted and the Provident Fund Scheme is given preference upon the other beneficial schemes, as provided under the rules of 'the trust'.

9. Mr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the EPFO submitted that under the Act 1952, the trust has been formulated and in the rules of trust, it is provided for every member that he or she shall subscribe to the fund every month equal to 12 % of his monthly running basic pay, which is the limit prescribed therein and the trust rules are still in existence and applicable that too are given strength with the provisions of Section 6A of the Act 1952, therefore, those are having the statutory strength. He submitted that it is not the denial on the part of the petitioner that the trust rules are not adopted or applicable to the employees of HAL, who are the members of the trust, therefore, submission is that in the case of the existence of Rules 20.1 and 20.2.1 of the HAL trust, which is made under the Act 1952, there is hurdle to accept any contribution more than prescribed 9 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 under the rules of the trust.

10. Upon considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is apparent that so far as the issue with respect to joint options is concerned, that has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of EPFO (supra), wherein, it has been held that there would be no limit period of time of giving joint option and the employees prior to the scheme 2014 and subsequent thereof, are entitled for giving their joint option.

11. Vide the aforesaid determination, the Apex Court, in the identically situated matter has held that any joint options presented on or before

31.01.2025, shall be accepted by the respondent as the cut-off date has not been accepted by the Apex Court in presenting the joint option and further, it is also provided that after remittance of differential contribution to the EPFO by the employees along with the interest, higher pension shall be disbursed. Coming to the next issue, which is said to be one of the hurdles for non- payment of higher pension to the petitioners and denial of acceptance of the higher contribution, which is apparent that the authorities have taken shelter of Rule 20.1 of 'the trust rules' made under the Act 1952, which provides the limitation of 12% of contribution, whereas the condition no. 10 of Appendix- A read with paragraph 27-AA of the Scheme provides that any amendment to the scheme which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the establishment, shall be made applicable to them, automatically, pending formal amendment rules of the trust, therefore, it is apparent that if any amendment is carved out, in the provisions of the Provident Fund Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees, the same shall be automatically applicable to the employees without amending the trust rules.

12. When this Court finds that the statutory pension scheme is beneficial legislation and so far as the trust rules are concerned that is applicable only to the provident fund scheme. 10 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025

13. This Court finds that the benefit of the statutory pension scheme cannot be declined because some rules of 'the trust,' says otherwise which are only applicable to the provident fund. The statutory scheme is a beneficial scheme in favor of the employees of HAL.

14. In fact even if some rules of the HAL trust are made in-pursuant to the consent, but the same is in violation of some statutory scheme and therefore the same would have no overriding effect over the provisions of the schemes and to that extent, the same would be void. This controversy has already been settled in the case of D.Chandisegar(supra) vide the judgment and order dated 02.09.2025.

15. Consequently, the orders impugned in this writ petition including all the connected writ petitions are hereby set aside. The benefit provided in the case of D.Chandirasegar(Supra) vide judgment and order dated

02.09.2025 shall also be available to the writ petitioners.

16. The present writ petitions alongwith the other connected writ petitions, are hereby allowed accordingly. December 19, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. By means of all connected writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the denial of the payment of higher pension on their joint option and further, a writ petition of mandamus has been sought, to approve the joint option of the petitioners submitted before the respondents and to make payment of enhanced pension in terms of the judgment and order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of EPFO versus Sunil Kumar B. and others reported in 2023 12 SCC 701.

3. The submission of counsel for the petitioners is that all the petitioners are retired employees of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Lucknow Division (hereinafter referred to as 'HAL'), and while discharging their duties on different posts, they have been superannuated and are getting pension. He submitted that the HAL is the public sector undertaking, which functions under the administrative control of Ministry of Defense, Government of India, therefore, the writ petitions on behest of the petitioners being the employee of the HAL is maintainable. Further submission is that in paragraph 26(6) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Scheme 1952'), the contribution limit was Rs.3,500/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- and again to rupees Rs. 6,500/- and lastly to Rs.15,000/- and as per the clause 11(3) of The Employee's Pension Scheme,1995(hereinafter, referred to as 'Scheme 1995), the maximum pensionable salary was limited to Rs.5,000/-, which reached up to Rs.15,000/- with effect from 01.09.2014. He added that in accordance with 4 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 the Act 1952 read with the scheme 1952 & 1995, a trust was formulated in the name of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited(Lucknow Division) Employees Provident Fund Trust(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'), wherein, the provisions for contribution by employee/employer, to the provident fund, has been provided, in the Rules 20.1 to 20.2.1 of the 'Trust' made under the provisions of Act 1952, which reads as under:- "20.1 Every member shall subscribe to the Fund every month sum equal to 12% of his monthly running Basic Pay, DA and retaining allowance if any (without limit in Every member shall subscribe to the Fund every month sum equal to 12% of his Pay), equal contribution payable by the company to the Fund of members (for P.T only). 2011 A member may, however, ut his option contribution at any rate higher than statutory rate of his pay but the company's contribution shall remain as under paragraph 20.1.

10.1.2 The exercise of option under sub-paragraph 20.1.1. to alter the rate of contribution. shall ordinarily become effective from 1th of April following, subject to the approval of the Chairman

20.1.3 The contribution shall be rounded off to the nearest rupee Le. 50 paise or more to be taken as next higher rupee and anything less than 50 paise is ignore.

20.1.4 The contribution of the members shall be recoverable by means of deduction from the wages of the members.

20.1.5 No subscription shall be recovered from an employce for such period, as he is absent from duties without pay.

20.2 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUND The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contribution payable to the Provident Fund by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the Act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of section 7Q. of the Act for any delay in payment of nay dues towards the Board of Trustees,

20.2.1 Out of Company's Contribution 8.33% of member's wages subject to a maximun of Rs. 6500.00 of eligible members shall be diverted to Member's Pension Contribution and shall be remitted to The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner U.P. within 15 days of the close of every month. The cost of remittance shall he born by the employer provided that where the pay of the member exceeds Rs. 6500/- per month, the balance of the employer contribution shall be credited to the member's individual account the establishment is not liable to make any contribution in respect of voluntary contribution. The contribution of employees pension fund shall be applicable only in case if the employee is a member of employees pension scheme 1995."

4. Referring the aforesaid, he submitted that the petitioners herein are the members of 'the trust' admittedly and in the rules of 'the trust' it is provided 5 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 that every member shall subscribe to the fund every month, equal to 12% of his monthly running basic pay and equal contribution payable by the Company to the fund of members, whereas, rule 20.2.1 provides that out of Company's contribution, 8.33% of members wages, subject to maximum of Rs.6,500/- of eligible members shall be diverted to members pension contribution and shall be remitted to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P. every month. He argued that the limit of contribution has been prescribed in the rules of 'the trust.'

5. Further submission is that the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 has been made in-pursuance of Section 6A of Act 1952 and paragraph no 3, 6, 11, 12, and 14 of the scheme 1995, the subject matter is enumerated, whereas, the act originally did not provide for any pension scheme and it was by inserting Section 6A by way of an amendment, in the year 1995. He submitted that the amendment of 1995, it is mentioned that the pension fund was to comprise of deposit of 8.33% of the employees' contribution made towards the provident fund corpus as per the prevailing statute and paragraph 11 of the scheme deals with the determination of pensionable salary.

6. He submitted that time and again, the issue was raised and in certain judgments and orders of various High Courts, the Employee Pension Amendment Scheme 2014 was set aside and matter ultimately went before the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the joint option of contribution in case of EPFO(supra), wherein, along with the other connected SLPs, were decided by a common order on 04.11.2022, wherein, following directions have been passed:- "44. We accordingly hold and direct: (i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent sub- paragraphs. (ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted 6 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed. (il) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1 September 2014. will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. (iv) Th The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1™ September 2014 stands crystallized in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1 September 2014 did not provide for any cut-off date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment scheme, which, was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with. (v) The employees who had retired prior to 1 September 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. (vi) The employees who have retired before 1 September 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014. (vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs. 15000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees contribution shall be as stop gap measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made. (viii) Will We do not find any flow in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary. (ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta 7 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre-amendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said Judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph. (x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms."

7. He submitted that the Apex Court has held that the notification no. G- GSR609(E) dated 22/8/2014 shall apply to the employees of exempted establishment under section 17 of the 'Act 1995', in the same manner as the employees of regular establishment and it was further held that the members of the scheme, who did not exercise option as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme(as it was before 2014 amendment) would also be entitled to exercise upon options in-terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme as it stands at present. In this view, the controversy has been put to rest that those who have not given their option shall also be entitled to give the option, subsequently. He next submitted that so far as the second set of controversy is concerned that is regarding the limit, which is prescribed under the rules of 'the trust,' which limits the contribution to 12% of the monthly running basic pay, which has also been dealt with by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in Case of D.Chandirasegar and others versus Union of India passed in Writ Petition MD No. 29573 to 29578 of 2014, along with the other connected petitions. Before the Madras High Court, the retired employees of Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Trichi challenged the order of EPFO, wherein, the EPFO had recalled the demand notice issued by them for payment of contribution, along with the applicable interest for higher pension and further the challenge laid to the circular issued by EPFO on 18.01.2025, wherein, the exempted establishments were not permitted to amend the trust rules retrospectively. The trust, which have been formulated deriving the power under the Act 1952, is identically applicable to the present petitioners as well as the petitioners who are the employees of BHEL. He submitted that HAL is an establishment exempted under section 17 of the Act 1952 and the provident fund scheme is being conducted by 'the trust' made under the Act 1952, whereas, the terms and 8 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 conditions of the exemptions are governed with the Appendix-A read with paragraph 27-AA of the scheme 1952 and they are also continue to be governed by statutory employee pension scheme 1995. He submitted that the scheme is more beneficial than the provisions of 'the trust rules', so far as the provident fund scheme is concerned. He concluded that vide the aforesaid judgment, the quietus is given to the controversy regarding the fact that which provisions will be undertaken for the purposes of contribution, that is either provided in the employees provident fund scheme or in 'the trust' rule, whereupon, the scheme has been given priority upon the trust rule as the same is more beneficial, therefore, submission is that the denial by the authorities for joint option, as well as for undertaking the proceedings as per the Provident Fund Scheme, is unjustified and against the settled provisions of law, thus, the submission is that the impugned order may be set aside.

8. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the HAL submits that in fact the HAL is employer and the same is abide by the provisions of Act 1952 as well as the scheme made there under. He further submitted that HAL has no objection if the joint option is permitted and the Provident Fund Scheme is given preference upon the other beneficial schemes, as provided under the rules of 'the trust'.

9. Mr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the EPFO submitted that under the Act 1952, the trust has been formulated and in the rules of trust, it is provided for every member that he or she shall subscribe to the fund every month equal to 12 % of his monthly running basic pay, which is the limit prescribed therein and the trust rules are still in existence and applicable that too are given strength with the provisions of Section 6A of the Act 1952, therefore, those are having the statutory strength. He submitted that it is not the denial on the part of the petitioner that the trust rules are not adopted or applicable to the employees of HAL, who are the members of the trust, therefore, submission is that in the case of the existence of Rules 20.1 and 20.2.1 of the HAL trust, which is made under the Act 1952, there is hurdle to accept any contribution more than prescribed 9 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025 under the rules of the trust.

10. Upon considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it is apparent that so far as the issue with respect to joint options is concerned, that has already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of EPFO (supra), wherein, it has been held that there would be no limit period of time of giving joint option and the employees prior to the scheme 2014 and subsequent thereof, are entitled for giving their joint option.

11. Vide the aforesaid determination, the Apex Court, in the identically situated matter has held that any joint options presented on or before

31.01.2025, shall be accepted by the respondent as the cut-off date has not been accepted by the Apex Court in presenting the joint option and further, it is also provided that after remittance of differential contribution to the EPFO by the employees along with the interest, higher pension shall be disbursed. Coming to the next issue, which is said to be one of the hurdles for non- payment of higher pension to the petitioners and denial of acceptance of the higher contribution, which is apparent that the authorities have taken shelter of Rule 20.1 of 'the trust rules' made under the Act 1952, which provides the limitation of 12% of contribution, whereas the condition no. 10 of Appendix- A read with paragraph 27-AA of the Scheme provides that any amendment to the scheme which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the establishment, shall be made applicable to them, automatically, pending formal amendment rules of the trust, therefore, it is apparent that if any amendment is carved out, in the provisions of the Provident Fund Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees, the same shall be automatically applicable to the employees without amending the trust rules.

12. When this Court finds that the statutory pension scheme is beneficial legislation and so far as the trust rules are concerned that is applicable only to the provident fund scheme. 10 WRIA No. 4339 of 2025

13. This Court finds that the benefit of the statutory pension scheme cannot be declined because some rules of 'the trust,' says otherwise which are only applicable to the provident fund. The statutory scheme is a beneficial scheme in favor of the employees of HAL.

14. In fact even if some rules of the HAL trust are made in-pursuant to the consent, but the same is in violation of some statutory scheme and therefore the same would have no overriding effect over the provisions of the schemes and to that extent, the same would be void. This controversy has already been settled in the case of D.Chandisegar(supra) vide the judgment and order dated 02.09.2025.

15. Consequently, the orders impugned in this writ petition including all the connected writ petitions are hereby set aside. The benefit provided in the case of D.Chandirasegar(Supra) vide judgment and order dated

02.09.2025 shall also be available to the writ petitioners.

16. The present writ petitions alongwith the other connected writ petitions, are hereby allowed accordingly. December 19, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench