•S a APHC010926442018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No: 44818 OF Between: V. Chinna Venkata Swamy, S/o V.Chinna Conductor (Retired), H.No.2-48/27-B, [ Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. A.P -518422. Swamy, 63 years, E. 409806, Near Veerabhadra Talkies, Atmakur ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization, Barkatpura; Hyderabad-500027. 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Kadapa Andhra Pradesh at Guntur. 3. The Secretary, A.P.S.R.T.C. Provident Fund Station, Vijayawada. 4. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Atmakur Depot, Kurnool Trust, Pandit Nehru Bus District. X" ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased to issue an appropriate Writ the High Court may be or order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Pension No.GR/CDP/00046179 dated 13.11.2013 one Payment Order of the 1®* and 2"'^ Respondents to the extent of not sanctioning higher pension to the petitioner is arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14, Article 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and the petitioner as consequently direct the Respondents to per the higher option exercised and per the ^loyees Pension Scheme, 1995 M y ■ sanction higher pension to ' higher amount remitted in the interest of justice and fair as play. jA No: 1 OF 901 ft in th/tr.T"' stated n % affldav,t filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an interim direction to the Respondents the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.G.SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. to sanction the higher pension to Petition. 1 & 2: SRI P.RAMABHOOPAL REDDY SC FOR EPFO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & APSRTC The Court made the following order; 4: SRI A.RAMA RAO, SC FOR 1 APHC010926442018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT ANIARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAl PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 44818/2018 THE Between; 1,v. CHINNA VENKATA SWAMY, S/0 V.CHINNA SWAMY 63 YEARS_ E 409806 CONDUCTOR (RETIRED), H.N0.2-48/27-B, NEAR veerabha’dra talkies,ATMAKUR. ATMAKUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. A.P -518422. ATMAKUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. A.P -518422. ...PETITIONER AND REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER. EMPLOYEES ORGANISATION, BARKATPURA.HYDERABAD- 1.THE PROVIDENT FUND 500027. 2.THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONERPENSION, KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH AT GUNTUR. 3 THE SECRETARY. A.P.S .R.T.C.PROVIDENT FUND TRUST, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA. 4.THE DEPOT MANAGER A.P.S.R.T.C. ATMAKUR DEPOT, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one Petition under Article 226 pleased to issue an 2 t<V> in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Pension Payment No.GR/CDP/00046179 dated 13.11.2013, of the 1st and 2nd the extent of not sanctioning higher pension to the petitioner is arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, discriminatory in violation of Article 14, Article 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution India, and consequently direct the Respondents the petitioner as per the higher option exercised and higher as per the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders. lA NO: 1 OF 2ni« Order Respondents to and of to sanction higher pension to amount remitted 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 grant an interim direction to the Respondents to sanction the higher pension to and pass such other order the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) The Court made the following: ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit entitled for higher pension in the light of the judgment of the Court in "The Employees Provident Fund Organisation that the petitioner is Hon’ble Supreme and another etc., 3 u, V. Sunil Kumar B. And others etc. at clauses (i), (vi) and (ix) of para No.44, wherein it is categorically held that: “(i) The provisions contained in the notification No.G.S.R.609(E) dated 22"'^ 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 subparagraphs. (vi) The employees who have retired before 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. (ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (Preamendment) 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.” Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 fairly conceded the same and would submit that it is a covered matter in the light of the judgment 2. of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra. In the light of the legal position referred supra, the petitioner is entitled 3. for higher pension. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to 4. submit a fresh application enclosing the earlier application, if any, pending On receiving such application, the with the respondent authorities. ' 2022 see Online Se 1521 4 respondent authorities will take appropriate decision in compliance of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^ % SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Barkatpura: Hyderabad-500027. 2. The Assistant Provident Fund CommissionerPension, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh at Guntur. 3. The Secretary, A.P.S.R.T.C.Provident Fund Trust, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada. 4. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Atmakur Depot, Kurnool District. 5. One CC to Sri A.G.Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri P.Ramabhoopal Reddy, SC for EPFO. [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 ORDER WP No. 44818 OF 2018 IT 18 AU6 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS