IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA^ WRIT PETITION NO: 21627 OF 2018 Between: K.Somanna, S/o K.Narasappa, Aged about 65 years, worked as Staff Assistant, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kurnool Branch, Kurnool District. K.Naganna, S/o K.Madanna, Aged about 66 years, worked as Business Manager, District Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Kurnool Head Office, Kurnool District. 1. 2. ...Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture & Cooperation Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar, of Cooperative Societies Ltd., Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Employees Provident Fund Organization, rep by its Commissioner, Kadapa District. The Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional/ Sub-Regional Office, Kadapa rep by its Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, (Pension), Kadapa District. The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Rep by its Chief Executive Officer. Kurnool, Kurnool District. The District Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Kurnool, Kurnool District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in--#ie circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court . ' may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, order or orders more . "parficularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of ’ , tl^e respondents No.3 to 6 in not considering the petitioners cases in pursuance of Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10013-100414 of 2016 for enhancing the Provident Fund Pension as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.3 to 6 to extend the benefit interms of Apex Court decision in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the respondents No.3 to 6 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 07-06-2018 forthwith; Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondents No.3 and 4: SRI T BALAJI (SC FOR EPFO) Counsel for the Respondent No.5; SRI KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI, STANDING COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI A PRABHAKR SARMA, STANDING-COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2: GP FOR COPERATION The Court made the following: 1 APHC010462662018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable dr justice VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21627/2018 Between: K.Somanna and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.M SHALINI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI 2.tbalaji(sc for EPFO) 3.APRABHAKAR SARMA The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for; “...to issue appropriate Writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents No 3 to 6 in not considering the petitioners cases in pursuance of Judgment of Honourable Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 10013-100414 of 2016 for enhancing the Provident Fund Pension illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No 3 to 6 to extend the benefit in terms of Apex Court decision in the interest ofjustice and to pass..." as 2. Heard Smt.M.Shalini, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for EPFO for the respondents. 3. During the course of arguments, learned Standing Counsel brought to the notice of this Court the recent Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors. Vs.Sunil Kumar B. and Ors^ wherein at paragraph No. 50, it is categorically held that the employees who had retired prior to 01.09.2014 without exercising any option under Para 11(3) of the pre-amendment Scheme have already exited from membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of the Judgment in the case of R.C.Gupta & Ors. Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Ors ^ Reported in 2018 14 SCC 809. the Vs.Regional Provident Fund 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that recording the same, the petition may be disposed of. 5. Considering the submission made, it is beneficial to extract the relevant portion of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Powergrid Retired Employees Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., in W.P. (Civil) No.97 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025: “The petitioner-association primarily seeks a review of the judgment passed by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of “Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors.” Reason: reported in (2023) 12 SCC 701, though Mr. Copal Sankaranarayanan , learned senior counsel for the petitioner- association would argue that '( 2023) 12 SCC 701 ^2018 14 SCC 809 ./ 3 only seeking not so, and they implementation the directions given by this Court in the case of “R.C. Gupta & Ors.vs. Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Ors.” reported in (2018) 14 see 809, which has been upheld in Sunil Kumar B (supra). All the same, this argument is totally misconceived since admittedly, the employees who are being represented by the petitioner-association have been held to be Ineligible for the reason that they had retired prior to 01.09.2014, exercising their option under are this IS Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, \ I the pre-amendment without Scheme/Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 as it stood prior to the amendment in 2014. In fact, this position has been clarified by this Court in Sunil Kumar B (Supra) and the relevant excerpts are reproduced I herein as under: “50. We accordingly hold and direct; 50.7. The employees who had retired prior to 1-9-2014 without exercising any option under Para 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. 50.8. The employees who have retired before 1-9-2014 upon exercising option under Para 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme shall be covered by the provisions of Para 11(3) of the Pension Scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014.” (emphasis provided)” In view of the fact that it is an admitted position that these employees have retired prior to 01.09.2014 & that too without exercising their option, we see no reason under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.” Coming to the present case, admittedly, the petitioners herein retired in the years 2010 and 2011 respectively without exercising any option. In that view, this Court does not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. to entertain this petition in exercise of our jurisdiction 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. 4 Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to M/s. M SHALINI Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI. T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI, Standing Counsel [OPUC] One CC to SRI A. PRABHAKR SARMA, Standing Counsel [OPUC] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 53^ •7'o g 12 JUN 2025 Co. ^^spatcw^S ORDER WP.No.21627 of 2018 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS