The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, citing the Supreme Court verdict in the landmark R.C. Gupta case (2016), has ordered enhancement of pension payable to a litigant found eligible for the revision of pension on higher wages.
The petitioner, B. Dhanasekaran, had joined the Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society in Paramakudi as secretary in 1978 and retired in 2012. He contended that from 1992 he had been remitting the provident fund contribution on the entire salary and not based on the wage ceiling limit.
1995 pension scheme
Under Clause 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, on the determination of pensionable salary, the maximum pensionable salary was limited to ₹6,500 per month. However, if at the option of the employer and the employee, the contribution paid on the salary exceeding ₹6,500 per month from the date of commencement of this scheme or from the date the salary exceeded ₹6,500, whichever is later, and the 8.33% share of the employer is remitted into the pension fund, the pensionable salary will be based on such higher salary.
In 2014, under the Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme, the maximum pensionable salary was revised to ₹15,000.
No cut-off date
In 2016, the Supreme Court in the R.C. Gupta case ruled that there was no cut-off date to determine the eligibility of the employer-employee to indicate their option under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. A beneficial scheme ought not to be allowed to be defeated by reference to a cut-off date, it said.
Further, the Supreme Court held that in the situation where the deposit of the employer’s share was on actual salary and not the ceiling amount, all that the Provident Commissioner was required to do was adjustment of accounts. He/she could seek the return of all such accounts that employees concerned may have taken or withdrawn from their Provident Account Fund before granting the benefit of Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Once such return was made in whichever cases the return was due, consequential benefits will be granted to the employees, the Supreme Court had said.
Fresh plea
Relying on this judgment, the petitioner sought enhancement of pension. His earlier petition filed in 2018 was disposed of with a direction to the authorities concerned to consider his representation based on the Supreme Court ruling. However, as his representation was not considered, he filed a fresh petition before the court.
Justice G. R. Swaminathan took cognisance of the communication sent to the petitioner by The Provident Fund Commissioner, where it was admitted that the petitioner was eligible for the revision of pension on higher wages.
The petitioner also belongs to an un-exempted establishment. Deduction from the petitioner’s entire salary without regard to the ceiling limit was made right from 1992 to 2012. Therefore, the very same exercise directed to be undertaken in R.C. Gupta’s case will have to be undertaken in the present case also, the court said.
It directed the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) and the Provident Fund Commissioner to undertake the exercise as per the Supreme Court ruling.
