CWP-34234 IN TH 223 Baru Ram Sh Union of Indi CORAM: Present : HARPREET 1. of the Consti the nature o 04.03.2020 on account o in consonanc judgment da Further prayi respondent N the demand a by the Apex C 1 234-2024 N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA CWP Date o am Sharma and others VERSUS of India and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HA Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for REET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has be Constitution of India for issuance of ture of certiorari for calling record 020 (Annexure P-4) denying the bene ount of non-receipt of permission and sonance with directions issued by th nt dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure P r praying for issuance of a writ in the dent No.3 to accept the differential am and and to pay pension on higher w Apex Court in terms of RC Gupta’a NJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH CWP-34234-2024 Date of Decision: February 05, 2026 .....Petitioner SUS ..Responden HARPREET SINGH BRAR te for the petitioners (through V.C). ate for the respondents-EPFO. been filed under Article 226/227 ce of an appropriate writ or order in record of the impugned order dated benefit of pension on higher wages n and option submitted by petitioners by the Apex Court in RC Gupta’s re P-1) and to set aside the same. in the nature of mandamus directing tial amount from the petitioners as per her wages as per the mandate issued case (Annexure P-1). 2026 ioners ondents /227 der in dated wages ioners ta’s same. ecting as per issued PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-34234 2. petitioners a judgment ren 10014 of 20 Commissione wherein it w pension irres not. Respond compliance submitted the some of peti from order submits that (Annexure P petitioners th pending befo taken as per t 3. that the petiti they have no the controve judgments cases, titled a decided on 2 2 234-2024 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 sioner, 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 (A ted their option for revision of pensio f petitioners was credited back to th rder dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure s that petitioners had also submitted r ure P-5) and in response thereof a re ners that the matter regarding grant o g before the Hon’ble Supreme Court a s per the outcome of petition. On the other hand, learned coun e petitioners are pre-retirees of year 20 ve not admittedly exercised their opti ntroversy involved in the present ca rendered by this Court in CW titled as Om Parkash and others Vers d on 24.09.2025 and CWP-32035- 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-1 ployees are entitled for revision of ch option was given during service or ons on 23.03.2017 (Annexure P-2) in nt (Annexure P-1). The petitioners pension and the amount deposited by to their saving bank as discernible xure P-4). Learned counsel further itted representation dated 22.12.2023 reply was received informing the grant of pension on higher wages is ourt and the necessary action will be d counsel for the respondents submits 2014 and prior to their retirement ir option to join the EPS Scheme and ent case is squarely covered by the CWP-35154-2024 and connected Versus Union of India and others, -2025, titled as Ram Nath and the n the 013- und 1) on of ice or ) in ioners ted by rnible urther .2023 ng the ges is ill be bmits ement and y the cted ers, and PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-34234 others Versu relevant porti 4. case (supra) LPA-3764-20 others, decid 5. present petiti so also, the p February 05 P.C 3 234-2024 ersus Union of India and others t 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. ary 05, 2026 Whether speaking/reasone Whether Reportable. : thers, decided on 30.10.2025. The 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 Ape 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 . The s, it fore nder res pex unil tired Writ civil case ’s urt in and the ), RAR) PUNEET CHAWLA 2026.02.07 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document