1 2026:CGHC:17533 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3107 of 2026 1 - Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Shiv Prasad Sharma, Aged About 73 Years R/o B-12 Shriram Nagar Phase-1 Vip Road Shankar Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Its Member Secretary Paryavas Bhavan, North Block Sector-19, Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.)492002 2 - Employ Provident Fund Organization (Ministry Of Labour And Employment Govt Of India, Through It Commissioner Regional Office Block D Scheme No. 32, IGV, Parisar Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Employ Provident Fund Organization (Ministry Of Labour And Employment Govt Of India Through Its Assistant Commissioner Regional Office Block D Scheme No. 32, IGV. Parisar Pandri Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS system) For Petitioner : Mr. Pragraditya Acharya, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Trivikram Nayak, Advocate For Respondents No.1 and 2 : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 16/04/2026 1. Challenge in this petition is to the decision of respondent No.2 intimated to petitioner vide letter dated 09.02.2026 rejecting the application submitted by petitioner on 21.01.2025 for grant of higher pension. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner stood retired from the post of Chief Engineer from the Chhattisgarh Pollution BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Control Board, Raipur C.G. in the year 2013 after serving respondent No.1 for a period of 34 years. Petitioner was member of pension scheme known as the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (In short ‘the Scheme, 1995’). The Scheme, 1995 came to be amended vide notification dated 22.08.2014 and made it effective from 01.09.2014. Petitioner’s claim for grant of higher pension based on the amendment brought in the Scheme, 1995 in particular Para-11 w.e.f. 01.09.2014 came to be rejected, which made petitioner to file this writ petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner Higher Pension Grievance From the Respondent No.2 and 3 department. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ of Certiorari by Quashing the impugned order 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3 in the interest of Justice. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to 3 grant the higher pension of the petitioner from the period of February 2022 with adequate penal interest. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court, may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner during his service carrier was a member of the Scheme, 1995. After retirement, petitioner was paid pension of Rs. 20,770/- on application submitted under Form-10D of the Scheme, 1995. Vide letter dated 25.02.2022, respondent No.2 has informed that till decision in case of the 3 Employee Provident Fund Organization & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Others, provisional pension to be paid and ordered for amended pension. It is also mentioned in the letter that pension is being paid on old rate. In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Employee Provident Fund Organisation And Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors., reported in (2023) 12 SCC 701, it has been specifically held that persons, who is retired prior to 01.09.2014 and is making joint contribution, said employee/persons shall be entitled for the benefit of the amendment as brought in w.e.f. 01.09.2014. The action on the part of the respondents in not extending the benefit of amended provision under Para 11 (3) of the Scheme, 1995 is highly arbitrary and illegal. It is also submitted that petitioner and respondent No.1 moved a joint application under Para 11 (3) of the Scheme, 1995, before respondent No.2 on 21.02.2023 in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sunil Kumar B (supra) and the regulations issued by the Head Office of respondent No.2 vide circular dated 29.12.2022, therefore, petitioner is entitled for benefit of amended Para -11 of the Scheme, 1995. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision in case of Sunil Kumar B (supra) and the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Lamman Sahu Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization in WPS No. 4132 of 2023 and other batch of writ petitions, decided on 02.03.2026. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that from the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is clear that petitioner stood retired from the service in the year 2013. On the date of bringing amendment under Para-11 (3) of the Scheme, 1995, petitioner was not 4 the member of scheme. He already exited from the scheme because of his retirement. He also submits that petitioner could be member under scheme up to age of 58 years as defined under Clause 2 (ix) of the Scheme, 1995, which clearly specifies that an employee shall cease to be the member of pension fund from the date of attaining 58 years of age. Joint application submitted by petitioner along with employee seeking option is much after the date of his retirement, therefore, petitioner could not get the benefit of amended Para 11 (3) of the Scheme, 1995, which came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2014. Referring to the decision in case of Sunil Kumar B (supra), he contended that in Para 50.4, Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued directions mentioning that the members of the scheme, who did not exercise option as contemplated in the proviso to Para 11 (3) of the Scheme, 1995 would be entitled to exercise option under Para 11 (4) of the post amendment scheme. He also submits that in Para 50.7, Hon’ble Supreme Court had considered the status of employee, who retired prior to 01.09.2014 without exercising any option under Para 11 (3) of the pre-amendment scheme to have exited from the membership, therefore, they would not be entitled to get benefit of this judgment. He also submits that retired Powergrid Retired Employees’ Association have filed writ petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking implementation of the direction given by the Court in case of R.C. Gupta Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organisation (2018) 14 SCC 809, Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 750 has dismissed the writ petition observing that employees have 5 retired prior to 01.09.2014 and that too without exercising their option, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that he has to seek instruction in the matter. 6. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. From the pleadings in the writ petition it is case of petitioner himself that petitioner stood retired from service in the year 2013. It is also arguments of learned learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has not submitted his option prior to amendment in Para-11 of the Scheme, 1995. According to petitioner, pursuant to letter dated 09.05.2018 issued by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, respondent No.1 has placed Form -3A along with its letter dated 25.06.2018, which also includes declaration given by petitioner and undertaking given by employer. Admittedly this letter is much after amendment notification of Para-11 (3) of the Scheme, 1995. 8. A proviso came to be inserted in Paragraph 11 (3) of the Scheme of 1955 w.e.f. 16.03.1996, whereby an option was given to the employer and employee to contribute beyond ceiling limit i.e. Rs. 6,500/- per month from the date of commencement of the scheme or from the date salary excess Rs.6500/-, whichever is later. Pursuant to above amendment, when some employees covered under the Scheme of 1995 have not been allowed to exercise the option under Section 11 (3) by the provident fund authorities on the ground that the employees who want to contribute beyond ceiling were bound to exercise option within stipulated time and whosoever had not filed option within time is 6 not eligible to contribute beyond the ceiling, they preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which was decided in favour of petitioner-employees therein, against which an intra court appeal was filed by the Department before the Division Bench and the order passed by learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench upholding the view of the Provident Fund Authority that under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme there was a cut-off date. Thereafter the matter went up to the Supreme Court in an appeal, which came to be registered as Civil Appeal (S) No.10013-10014/2016 (RC Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others). Said appeal came to be decided on 4.10.2016 and the cut off date which was fixed by the department was set aside. Relevant paragraph of the decision in RC Gupta’s case (supra) is extracted herein below for ready reference:- “7. Reading the proviso, we find that the reference to the date of commencement of the Scheme or the date on which the salary exceeds the ceiling limit are dates from which the option exercised are to be reckoned with for calculation of pensionable salary. The said dates are not cut-off dates to determine the eligibility of the employer- employee to indicate their option under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. A somewhat similar view that has been taken by this Court in a matter coming from the Kerala High Court, wherein the Special Leave Petition (C) No.7074 of 2014 filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was rejected by this Court by order dated 31.03.2016. A beneficial Scheme, in our considered view, ought not to be allowed to be defeated by reference to a cut-off date, particularly, in a situation where (as in the present case) the employer had deposited 12% 7 of the actual salary and not 12% of the ceiling limit of Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- per month, as the case may be. 9. Pursuant to judgment in R.C. Gupta’s case (supra), the respondent EPFO vide Circular dated 23.03.2017 invited applications for exercising option and the employees as per said judgment returned contribution received from provident fund, they also filed option, which was accepted and acted upon by respondent authorities in terms of provision of Paragraph 11 (3) of the Scheme of 1995. Respondent EPFO thereafter revised pension as well as released arrears to employees across the country. Pension payable to the petitioner herein also stood revised after obtaining additional contribution from the petitioner which was deposited with respondent No.1. 10. In the interregnum, respondent No.1 vide Notification dated 22.8.2014, enhanced the wage ceiling from Rs.6,500/- to Rs.15,000/- by amending Para-11 of the Scheme of 1995; deleted the proviso thereto and also inserted sub-para (4) in Para-11, which reads as under:- “(4) The existing members as on the 1st day of September, 2014, who at the option of the employer and employee, had been contributing on salary exceeding six thousand and five hundred rupees per month, may on a fresh option to be exercised jointly by the employer and employee continue to contribute on salary exceeding fifteen thousand rupees per month and the pensionable salary for the existing members who prefer such fresh option shall be based on the higher salary]: Provided that the aforesaid members have to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent on salary exceeding fifteen thousand rupees as an additional contribution from and out of the contributions payable by the employees for each month under the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder: Provided further that the fresh option shall be exercised by the member within a period of six months from the 1st day of September, 2014: Provided also that the period specified in the second proviso may, on sufficient cause being shown by the member, be 8 extended by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for a further period not exceeding six months: Provided also if no option is exercised by the member within such period (including the extended period), it shall be deemed that the member has not opted for contribution over wage ceiling and the contributions to the Pension Fund made over the wage ceiling in respect of the member shall be diverted to the Provident Fund account of the member along with interest as declared under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme from time to time.” 11. As per the amendment brought to the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, which came into effect from 01.09.2014, the ceiling of maximum pensionable salary provided in Paragraph 11 (3) was raised to Rs.15,000/- per month. Proviso appended to Paragraph 11 (3) has been deleted with effect from 01.9.2014 and sub-para (4) is introduced in Paragraph 11 which provides that existing members as on 1.9.2014, who at the option of the employer and employee, had been continuing on salary exceeding six thousand and five hundred rupees per month, may on a fresh option to be exercised jointly by the employer and employee continue to contribute on salary exceeding Rs.15,000/- per month and pensionable salary for the existing members who prefer such fresh option shall be based on the higher salary. The option could be submitted within further period of six months, in case the authority under the Act found sufficient reasons therefor. This amendment also introduced a deeming clause whereby failure to exercise the option within the stipulated period of six months from 01.09.2014, further extended by six months on showing sufficient cause by the existing member, shall result in automatic exclusion from the benefit of higher pension, with excess contribution being diverted back to Provident Fund. 9 12. Issue of applicability of paragraph 11(4) of the Scheme of 1995, which came into force with effect from 01.09.2014, came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in EPFO & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors., (2023) 12 SCC 701. It was observed as under:- "50.4. The members of the Scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to Para 11(3) of the Pension Scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under Para 11(4) of the post amendment Scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1-9-2014 stands crystallized in the judgment of this Court in R.C. Gupta. The Scheme as it stood before 1-9-2014 did not provide for any cut-off date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of Para 11(4) of the Scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre- amended Para 11(3) as also the amended Para 11(4) of the Pension Scheme. 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." 13. From perusal of above quoted portion of decision in case of Sunil Kumar B (supra) it is clear that the members of the Scheme of 1995, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to Para 11(3) of the Scheme of 1995 (as it was before 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under Para 11(4) of the post 10 amendment Scheme and 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. In other words, all the employees who without filing option under proviso to Para 11 (3) of the Scheme of 1995 had retired prior to 01.09.2014 but have filed option after the decision of Hon’ble Court in case of R.C. Gupta (supra) are not entitled to revised higher pension. 14. Relying on the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 46 (v) and (vi) of the judgment rendered in case of Sunil Kumar B’s case (supra), the respondent No.1 decided that the employees who retired prior to 1.9.2014 without exercising option under Paragraph 11 (3) are not entitled to higher amount of pension. Accordingly, circular dated 29.12.2022 and 20.2.2023 have been issued calling upon the employees to apply online/digitally for validation of their option. Requirements for validation of joint option are that it must contain the proof of remittance of employer’s share in Provident Fund on higher wages exceeding the prevalent wage ceiling of Rs.5,000/6500 and proof of joint option under para 11 (3) as also Para 26 (6) of the Scheme of 1955 duly verified by the employer. Since petitioner- employee, who retired prior to 1.9.2014, did not submit proof of the exercise of joint option under erstwhile para 11 (3) of the Scheme of 1995 and also proof of remittance in provident fund on higher wages exceeding the prevalent wage ceiling despite above repeated circulars, respondent No.1 reopened the case of petitioner-employee and vide impugned order reduced monthly pension of the petitioner. 11 15. Hence, the question arises for determination in this petition is whether an employee, who retired prior to 01.09.2014, without having exercised a joint option under the proviso to Paragraph 11 (3) of pre- amendment Scheme of 1995, during his/her service, is entitled to the benefit of higher pension? 16. The Employees' Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 was notified on 22.8.2014 and brought into force with effect from 01-09-2014. Effect of the amendment in 2014 was that maximum pensionable salary was increased from Rs.6500/- to 15000/-; proviso to sub-para (3) of Para 11 enabling members to contribute in excess of the contribution due on the maximum pensionable salary was deleted and a new sub-para (4) was added to Para-11 to deal with cases of existing members who had been contributing on actual salary as on 01.09.2014 by providing them an option (to be exercised in the manner prescribed) to continue to pay contributions with reference to their actual salary. 17. At this stage, it is necessary to have a look at the definition of ‘existing member’ and ‘member’ provided in the Scheme of 1995. ‘Existing Member’ is defined in Section 2 (vi) of the Scheme of 1995, which reads as under:- “(vi) “existing member” means an existing employee who is a member of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971.” 18. ‘Member’ is defined under Section 2 (ix), which reads as under:- “(ix) ‘member’ means an employee who becomes a member of the Employees Pension Fund in accordance with the provisions of this Scheme: Explanation:- An employee shall cease to be the member 12 of Pension Fund from the date of attaining 58 years of age or from the date of vesting admissible benefits under the Scheme, whichever is earlier.” 19. From perusal of explanation appended to the definition of ‘member’ given in Para-2 (ix) of the Scheme of 1995 it is clear that, an employee shall cease to be the member of Pension Fund from the date of attaining 58 years of age or from the date of vesting admissible benefits under the Scheme, whichever is earlier. Thus, it is clear that amendment brought in the Scheme of 1995 in the year 2014 by which proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Scheme of 1995 was deleted w.e.f. 01/09/2014, was in relation to the existing members i.e. those who were in still in service as on 01.09.2014 and not retired. Hence, benefit of proviso cannot be extended to any employee after 01/09/2014 if he had not exercised the option earlier and ceases to be a member of the Pension Fund. 20. In case of Sunil Kumar B (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with issue of applicability of amendment made in the year 2014, has held that those employees who had retired prior to 1.9.2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11 (3) of pre-amended scheme, besides had already exited from the membership thereof, they would not be entitled to benefit of the judgment passed in R.C. Gupta's case (supra) nor they would become entitle to the pension scheme (amended) of 2014. It was further held that the existing members of the scheme or those who had not superannuated at the time of coming into force of 2014 amendment, if they had earlier not exercised option in terms of the proviso to paragraph 11 (3) of the 13 Scheme of 1995, they would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11 (4) of the post amended scheme. 21. Recently, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.97 of 2025, parties being Powergrid Retired Employees’ Association (PREA) vs Union of India and others, decided on 19.3.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the employees, who retired prior to 01.09.2024 without exercising their option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme, are not entitled to the benefits of amendment brought in 2014. 22. In case at hand, from the pleadings and submissions made on behalf of respective parties, it transpires that the petitioner herein retired before 01.09.2014 without exercising the option under Para 11 (3) of the Scheme of 1995. Para 11 (3) of the Scheme of 1995 which relates to joint option for higher contribution for pension funds stood deleted w.e.f. 1.9.2014. Petitioner submitted option admittedly only after decision in case of R.C. Gupta (supra), in the year 2018. Para 11 (4) of the Scheme of 1995, introduced on 1.9.2014, provides that fresh option shall be exercised by the existing member within a period of six months from 01.09.2014. Petitioner also failed to produce any material before the respondent department or this Court indicating that petitioner submitted option being member under the Scheme or prior to 1.9.2014, under Para 11 (3) of the Scheme of 1995 and pursuant thereto, there was remittance in pension fund on higher wages exceeding the prevalent wage ceiling of Rs.5000-6500/-. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, withdrawal of benefit of higher pension of the petitioner on the ground that he had retired prior to 01.09.2014 without filing their option, does not call for any interference 14 in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Sunil Kumar B. (supra) and Powergrid Corporation (supra). 23. For the foregoing reason and discussions, in the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition has no merits, the same are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram