CWP-18073 IN TH 214 Sukhjit Singh Employees P CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti the nature of (Annexure P of exceeding ground of no 1952 against case and furt being non sp issuance of a to resubmit t 1 073-2020 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date t Singh Chahal and others VERSUS yees Provident Fund Organization and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India for issuance of ure of certiorari for quashing the im ure P-7) rejecting the pension revisio eding wage limit under Employees Pe of non obtaining of permission und gainst the law laid down by Hon’ble S nd further prayed to quash order date non speaking and contrary of the se e of a writ in the nature of mandamu bmit the case of petitioners to the res NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-18073-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 28, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS n and others ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR ate for the petitioners. ate for respondents No.1 to 4. vocate for respondents No.5 and 6. been filed under Article 226/227 ce of an appropriate writ or order in the impugned order dated 11.09.2019 revision case for allowing the benefit ees Pension Scheme primarily on the n under Para 26(6) of EPF Scheme, n’ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta’s r dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure P-10 the settled law. Further praying for amus directing the respondent Bank the respondent RPFC Commissioner, 2026 ioners ondents /227 der in .2019 enefit on the heme, ta’s 10) g for Bank ioner, PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18073 Amritsar and and recalcula the same with 2. petitioners a judgment ren 10014 of 20 Commissione wherein it w pension irres not. Respond compliance o by another se P-4 & 5) resp for revision o credited bac 04.10.2019 (A had also ser response the matter regard Hon’ble Sup outcome of 3. submits that 2 073-2020 ar and direct the RPFC authorities to calculate the amount to be deposited a e within specified period and release a Learned counsel for the petition ners are entitled to the revision of nt rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Co f 2016, R.C. Gupta and others V ioner, Employees Fund Organizati n it was held that all the employee n irrespective of the fact that such opt espondent No.1 issued instructions on ance of the aforesaid judgment (Anne ther set of instructions dated 21.06.20 respectively. On 04.10.2019, the pe ision of pension and the amount depos back to their saving bank as 019 (Annexure P-6). Learned counsel so served a legal notice dated 17.0 se thereof a reply was received info regarding grant of pension on highe le Supreme Court and the necessary e of petition. On the other hand, learned cou s that the petitioners are pre-retirees ties to accept the claim of petitioners sited along with interest and intimate lease all consequential benefits. etitioners, inter alia, contends that the n of their pension based upon the e Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10013 ers Vs. Regional Provident Fund ization and others, (Annexure P-2) ployees are entitled for revision of ch option was given during service or ons on 23.03.2017 (Annexure P-3) in (Annexure P-2), which was followed 1.06.2017 and 08.06.2018 (Annexure the petitioners submitted their option deposited by some of petitioners was as discernible from order dated ounsel further submits that petitioners 17.08.2020 (Annexure P-8) and in informing the petitioners that the higher wages is pending before the ssary action will be taken as per the d counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 tirees of year 2014 and prior to their ioners timate the n the 013- und 2) on of ice or 3) in lowed exure option rs was dated ioners nd in at the re the er the 1 to 4 their PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18073 retirement th Scheme and t by the judg connected ca and others, Nath and oth The relevant 4. case (supra) LPA-3764-20 others, decid 5. present petiti so also, the p January 28 P.C 3 073-2020 ent they have not admittedly exercise and the controversy involved in the p judgments rendered by this Cou ed cases, titled as Om Parkash and ers, decided on 24.09.2025 and CW d others Versus Union of India and levant portion thereof reads as under: 4. “Having heard the learn transpires that the petitioners in 01.09.2014 without exercising paragraph 11(3). The law in integra and has been settled by Court in ‘Employees Provident Kumar B’ 2022 INSC 11 Employees’ Association (Prea Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).97-2025 5. In view of the disc writ petition is hereby dismissed (supra).” Moreover, the judgment passed pra), has also been upheld by a D 2025, titled as Ram Nath and oth , decided on 24.12.2025. In view of the above facts and t petition is hereby dismissed in terms , the pending application(s), if any. 28, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : xercised their option to join the EPS in the present case is squarely covered s Court in CWP-35154-2024 and and others Versus Union of India CWP-32035-2025, titled as Ram and others, decided on 30.10.2025 nder:- learned counsel for the parties, it rs in the present case retired before ising the stipulated option under in this regard is no longer res d by this Court and Hon’ble Apex ident Fund Organization Vs. Sunil 1171 and ‘Powergrid Retired Prea) Vs. Union of India’ Writ 2025. discussion above, the present civil issed in terms of Om Parkash’s case passed by this Court in Ram Nath’s a Division Bench of this Court in d others Versus Union of India and ts and circumstances of the case, the terms of Om Parkash’s case (supra) (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE easoned. : Yes/No Yes/No e EPS vered and ndia Ram .2025. s, it fore nder res pex unil tired Writ civil case ’s urt in and the ), RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.01.31 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document