1 APHC010237532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 13313/2025 Between: 1. SURAMPUDI SESHACHALAM, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O. FLAT NO. 203, SUCHITHRA RESIDENCY, NEAR RED BUILDING BHAGH AMBEERPET, HYD, T.S.- 500013 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION DELHI. 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, E.P.F.O. REGIONAL OFFICE BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, HYDERABAD 4. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, E.P.F.O. REGIONAL OFFICER GUNTUR, AMARAVATHI, A.P 5. AP STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, REP.BY ITS VC MANAGING DIRECTOR IV V FLOOR. CORPORATION OFFICE H.NO.L 0-152/1 SRI SAI 2 TOWERS, ASHOKNAGAR BESIDE SIRIS COMPANY, KANURU, BANDAR ROAD VIJAYAWADA - 520007, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K GANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALAJI(SC FOR EPFO) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.13313 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed declaring the inaction of the respondents in payment of joint option for pension on higher wages in respect of Sri Surampudi Seshachalam UAN No.100322569943/Joint option acknowledgement No.230305115844001051 111, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). 3. The petitioner, who is employed with 5th respondent, is having Employee Provident Fund Account No.1246, and in terms of Para.26(6) of the Employee Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, has been contributing his share. The petitioner stated to have submitted joint option form as required under pre-amended Para.11(3) and amended Para.11(4) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 for claiming benefit on actual salary i.e. exceeding statutory wage limit. That the petitioner has contributed Rs.15,000/- every month towards his contribution. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has made a representation, dated 23.04.2023, to the respondents for making him eligible for drawing pension on the basis of his actual salary/wages instead of being based on statutory wage ceiling as declared by the EPFO. But, the respondents have not considered and not replied to the said representation. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court about the orders passed by this Court in identical circumstances in W.P.No.9063 of 2025, wherein this Court has considered and disposed of the same with the following directions: “6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, having regard to the fact that the respondents are ceased of the matter, in pursuance to the petitioner’s representation, dated 28.02.2023, the writ petition is disposed of with the consent of both the learned counsel, by directing the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 28.02.2023 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law.” Accordingly, he has requested to pass the same orders. 5 6. Reply to the same, Sri T.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), has submitted that in fact the respondents have considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected it on the ground that the same was not forwarded through the 5th respondent as the 5th respondent is the employer and the petitioner has no right to approach directly respondent Nos.1 to 3. Only the 5th respondent alone has to forward the proposals of the petitioner and then only respondent Nos.3 and 4 would consider the same and pass appropriate orders and deposit the amounts. 7. In the said circumstances, though the learned counsel for the petitioner has clearly stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the contributory amounts, as contended by learned Standing Counsel for EPFO, the petitioner has to approach the 5th respondent. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to send the proposal to the 5th respondent by depositing the contributory amounts and the 5th respondent may consider the same and forward the said proposal to respondent Nos.3 and 4. If any proposal is received from the 5th respondent, the same 6 may be considered by respondent Nos.3 and 4 as per rules and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 27.01.2026 Ivd 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.13313 of 2025 Dated: 27.01.2026 Ivd