Sudhir Kumar Vs Union of India (Patna High Court)
Exercising joint option under Paragraph 26(6) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 is a precursor to exercise option under Paragraph 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 for higher pension.
The Patna High Court, in the case of Sudhir Kumar Vs Union of India, addressed a petition filed by retired employees of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. seeking higher pensionable salaries under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (EPS). The petitioners, after contributing excess amounts to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) since 1997, contested that their pensions were arbitrarily fixed at a much lower amount than warranted by their actual salaries at the time of superannuation. They argued that the pension should be based on their last drawn salary, which included basic pay and dearness allowances, rather than the statutory salary limit of Rs. 6,500.
The petitioners cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in C. Gupta & Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2018), which mandated that pension must be determined based on the last pay scale with dearness allowances. Despite the petitioners’ claims that both they and their employer had been contributing on higher wages, EPFO maintained that their pension should be based on the statutory limit, given that the joint option under Paragraph 26(6) of the EPF Scheme was not exercised. This option is a prerequisite for opting for higher pensionable wages under Clause 11(3) of the EPS, 1995.
Comments are closed.