1 CGHC010205952026 2026:CGHC:35469-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 688 of 2026 1 - Chhedilal Sharma S/o Gayadin Sharma Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 11, Nagar Panchayat Sargaon, Tahsil- Pandariya, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Employees Provident Fund Organization Through Commissioner, Regional Office, Block- D, Scheme- 32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit Bilaspur Through Chief Executive Officer Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Shri Yogesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Sunil Pillai, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Seema Verma, on behalf of Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 12.08.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 8511/2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / ap- pellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/writ petitioner, a retired employee of Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Dairy Federation, was a member of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. Upon his re- INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.08.13 12:25:12 +0530 2 tirement, he was sanctioned a monthly pension of Rs.2399/-. Pur- suant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta & Others his v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner re- ported in (2018) Prim 14 SCC 809 and the circular issued by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation permitting revision of pen- sion on actual salary, the appellant submitted an application seeking enhancement of pension. Thereafter, a revised Pension Payment Order was issued, sanctioning enhanced pension in favour of the appellant @ Rs.9039/-, which was regularly paid till January, 2022. Subsequently, without issuance of any show-cause notice or afford- ing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the respondents dis- continued the enhanced pension and reverted to the earlier pension. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred WPS No. 4584 of 2022, which was allowed by this Court and the order dated 25.02.2022 was quashed with a direction that any adverse action could be taken only in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity to the appellant. Thereafter, relying upon the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in EPFO v. Sunil Kumar B. decided on 04.11.2022, the respondents issued a fresh PPO bearing No. 100971, reducing the appellant's pension to Rs. 2,070/- per month. 3. Questioning the said action, the appellant filed WPS No. 8511 of 2024. The learned Single Judge by order dated 15.04.2026 dis- missed the writ petition holding that the appellant had retired prior to 01.09.2014 and had not exercised option under Paragraph 11(3) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 before the cut-off date. As- sailing the said order, it is contended by the appellant that he had al- ready exercised the requisite option pursuant to the judgment in R.C. 3 Gupta and the circulars issued by the EPFO, pursuant whereof the respondents themselves accepted the additional contribution and granted enhanced pension. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ ap- peal has been preferred. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts on record, the statu- tory provisions governing higher pension and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Gupta (supra). It is submitted that pursuant to the circular dated 23.03.2017 issued by the EPFO in implementation of the aforesaid judgment, the appellant exercised the option for higher pension and, after due scrutiny of the records, the respondent authorities themselves sanctioned higher pension by issuing a revised PPO. The appellant continued to receive the said higher pension for several years. Having consciously processed the claim, accepted the additional contribution and granted the benefit, the respondent authorities are stopped from subsequently denying the same on the ground that the appellant had retired prior to 01.09.2014 or had not exercised option under Paragraph 11(3) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the statutory right flowing from Paragraph 11(3) of the Scheme, the doctrine of legiti- mate expectation and the principle of promissory estoppel operate in favour of the appellant, particularly when the EPFO itself imple- mented the judgment in R.C. Gupta, invited options, accepted contri- butions and granted revised pension after approval at the competent level. 4 4. Learned counsel further submits that the reliance placed upon the decision in EPFO v. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors, reported in (2023) 12 SCC 701 is wholly misconceived, as the said judgment is distin- guishable on facts and does not apply to cases where the pensioner had already exercised the option, deposited the requisite amount and had been granted higher pension pursuant to the judgment in R.C. Gupta (supra). It is contended that the reduction of pension vide PPO No.100971 dated 22.03.2023 was effected without is- suance of any show-cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing, in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and Arti- cles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the respondents acted contrary to the earlier order passed by this Court in WPS No.4584 of 2022 and also ignored the EPFO Head Office instructions directing that higher pension already granted should not be reduced without appropriate legal sanction. The appellant has also been subjected to hostile discrimination, inasmuch as similarly situated pensioners, including those governed by the same EPFO Zonal Office and those covered by the judgment of this Court in Lalman Sahu v. EPFO, continue to receive higher pension. Therefore, the impugned judgment has resulted in unequal treatment of identically situated pensioners and, if allowed to stand, would permit the respondents to retain the substantial amount de- posited by the appellant while simultaneously withdrawing the corre- sponding benefit, leading to manifest arbitrariness and grave pen- sion already read injustice. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made be learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeal 5 and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which, no interference is sought for. Further, identical issue has already been considered and decided by this court in Writ Appeal No.516 of 2026. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the im- pugned order and materials available on record. 7. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Single Judge held that in terms of the Explanation appended to Paragraph 2(ix) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, an em- ployee ceases to be a member of the Pension Fund upon attaining the age of 58 years or upon vesting of admissible benefits under the scheme whichever occurs earlier. The learned Single Judge further held that the amendment introduced with effect from 01.09.2014, in- cluding the deletion of the proviso to Paragraph 11(3), was intended to apply only to existing members who continued in service on the said date and not to employees who had already retired and ceased to be members of the Pension Fund. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Sunil Kumar B. (supra) and Powergrid Retired Employees' Association v. Union of India and Others decided on 19.03.2025 in WPC No. 97/2025, it was observed that employees who had retired prior to 01.09.2014 without exercising the option contemplated under Paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amended Scheme were not entitled either to the benefit of the decision in R.C. Gupta or to the benefits flowing from the 2014 amendment. Since the writ petitioner had admittedly retired prior to 01.09.2014 and had exercised the option only in the year 2018 after the decision in R.C. 6 Gupta, without establishing that any option had been exercised prior to retirement or that contributions on higher wages had been remit- ted under Paragraph 11(3), the learned Single Judge concluded that the respondents were justified in withdrawing the benefit of higher pension and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appear- ing for the parties, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and also considering the fact that identical issue has already been considered and decided by this court in Writ Appeal No.516 of 2026, we notice that the same has been rendered with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity, as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. In the result, the writ appeal lacks merit substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder