THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION & ANR. ETC. versus SUNIL KUMAR B. & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2022] 11 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 04-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
959
   [2022] 11 S.C.R. 959
959
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION &
ANR. ETC.
v.
SUNIL KUMAR B. & ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal No. 8143 of 2022)
November 04, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952: ss. 6A, 7 - Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 – Paras 3,
6, 11, 12 and 14 – Certain amendments and modifications made by
the Central Government to the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 –
Legality of – Changes sought be effected in paragraphs 3, 6, 11,
12 and 14 of the 1995 scheme, whereby s. 6A was introduced to the
said Act, which contemplated formulation of a scheme for employees’
pension and the pension fund was to comprise of deposit of 8.33
per cent of the employers’ contribution made towards provident fund
corpus and determination of pensionable salary; that the maximum
pensionable salary was enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.6500/- by a
notification G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014, to be effective
from 1 st September 2014; that the Central Government was to
contribute to the fund at the rate of 1.16 per cent of the pay of the
members, the employees within the changed pension regime drawing
more than Rs.15000/- per month have to also contribute at the rate
of 1.16 % on salary exceeding Rs.15000/- as additional contribution
each month under the amended provisions; fresh option was to be
exercised by the member within a period of six months, and if not, it
would be deemed that the concerned member has not opted for
contribution over the wage Ceiling – Several writ petitions filed in
different High Courts seeking invalidation of this notification – Writ
petitions also filed u/Art. 32 challenging the Notifications – Held:
Provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated
22nd August 2014 are legal and valid – Amendment to the pension
scheme brought about by the notification would apply to the
employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 11 S.C.R.
the employees of the regular establishments – Employees who had
exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995
scheme and continued to be in service as on 1st September 2014,
would be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of
the pension scheme – Members, who did not exercise option, as
contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension
scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to
exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment
scheme – Scheme as it stood before 1st September 2014 did not
provide for any cutoff date and thus those members shall be entitled
to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it
stands at present – Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4)
of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by
a further period of four months – Employees who had retired prior
to 1st September 2014 without exercising any option under
paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme have already exited
from the membership thereof, thus, they would not be entitled to the
benefit of this judgment – Employees who have retired before 1st
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 – Requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16
per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000/
- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme
is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act – Operation
of this part of its order is suspended for a period of six months – No
flaw is found in altering the basis for computation of pensionable
salary – View taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta’s
case so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre-
amendment) pension scheme is concerned, is upheld – Fund
authorities to implement the directives contained in the said judgment
within the stipulated period – Impugned judgment modified
accordingly – Constitution of India – Arts. 14 and142.
Constitution of India: Art. 14 – Reasonable classification –
Provident Funds Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 – Employees of
the pension scheme – Held: Cannot be considered as a homogenous
group – No distinction can be made among different categories of
employees bas

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.