Sunil Kumar Mehrotra And 24 Others vs Central Board Of Trustee E.P.F.O. Ministry Of Labour And Emp. New Delhi And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
Reserved on 10.02.2026
Delivered on 08.05.2026
A.F.R
WRIT - A No. - 504 of 2026
Sunil Kumar Mehrotra And 24 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Central Board Of Trustee E.P.F.O. Ministry Of Labour And
Emp. New Delhi And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats, Anshuman Singh
Rathore
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Prakash Kumar Sinha
And
WRIT - A No. - 1169 of 2026
Pankaj Mishra And 24 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Central Board Of Trustee Employees Provident Fund
Organization New Delhi And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats, Anshuman Singh
Rathore
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Prakash Kumar Sinha
And
WRIT - A No. - 255 of 2026
Brijendra Prakash Tiwari And 24 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Central Board Of Trustee Employees Pro. Fund
Organization New Delhi And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats, Anshuman Singh
Rathore
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Prakash Kumar Sinha
And
WRIT - A No. - 256 of 2026

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
2
Shankar Jairaj And 24 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Central Board Of Trustee E.P.F. Organization Min. Of
Labour And Employment New Delhi A
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anshuman Singh Rathore, Pradeep Kumar
Singh Vats
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Prakash Kumar Sinha
And
WRIT - A No. - 258 of 2026
Mohammad Nasir Hussain And 24 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Central Board Of Trustee Provident Fund Organization
New Delhi And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats, Anshuman Singh
Rathore
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Prakash Kumar Sinha
And
WRIT - A No. - 506 of 2026
Pramod Kumar And 24 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Central Board Of Trustee Employees Provident Fund
Organization New Delhi And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats, Anshuman Singh
Rathore
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Prakash Kumar Sinha
And
WRIT - A No. - 743 of 2026
Ramendra Kumar Singh And 24 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Central Board Of Trustee Employees Provident Fund
Organization New Delhi And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anshuman Singh Rathore, Pradeep Kumar
Singh Vats

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
3
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Prakash Kumar Sinha
And
WRIT - A No. - 792 of 2026
Rajan Lal And 24 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Central Board Of Trustee Employees Provident Fund
Organization New Delhi And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Singh Vats, Anshuman Singh
Rathore
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Prakash Kumar Sinha
Court No. - 16
HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Anshuman Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2,
and Mr. Prakash Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Since identical questions are involved for adjudication in the present
2.
petition and the other connected petitions, therefore, all the writ petitions are
being decided collectively.
3. The petitioners have preferred the writ petitions, being aggrieved that the
claims of the petitioners for payment of higher pension on their joint option,
has been rejected.
The brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners were employees
4.
of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Lucknow, and have been
retired after attaining the age of superannuation while discharging their
duties on various posts and are getting their pensions. The HAL is a public
sector undertaking which functions under the administrative control of the
Ministry of Defence, Government of India. The HAL is an exempted
establishment under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act).
For the limited purpose of managing the provident fund through the HAL
Employees Provident Fund Trust Rules, the employer's share of the
contribution to the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 is regularly remitted to
the EPFO in accordance with the scheme. The contribution towards the
pension has regularly been made on the actual salary of both the employer
and the employees in accordance with the statutory provisions of the scheme
1995.
The dispute has arisen once the Regional Provident Commissioner,
5.

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
4
Lucknow, rejected the joint option forms for higher pension on the ground
that Rule 20.2.1 of the HAL Trust Rules limits the pensionable salary to
Rs.6,500/- despite the fact that the employer is contributing 8.33% on the
actual salary, and the pension has already been dispersed on the statutory
ceiling of Rs.15,000/-. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
perhaps, has considered the Rule 20.1 and 20.2.1 of the Trust Deed, and has
rejected the joint option forms on higher pension.
6. The issue for adjudication herein is whether the ceiling on the contribution
shall be applicable as per the Trust Deed, or the higher permission would be
payable as per the joint option forms for higher pension.
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
7.
respondents, without properly applying their minds and on layman's,
arbitrary grounds, have refuted to accept the joint option form and further
denied higher pension, which caused great prejudice to the petitioners. He
submits that Section 17(1)(C) of the 1952 Act provides that an establishment
exempted under Section 17(1)(A) of the Scheme 1995 shall not be exempted
from the Employees Pension Scheme framed under Section 6A. He added
that HAL is exempted only from the scheme 1995 and continues to be
governed fully by the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995. He added
that the employees have already contributed as per the actual salary and,
consequently,
the liberty provided under Section 26 (6) of the 1952 Scheme has effectively
been exercised.
8. Further submission is that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has
wrongly relied upon the Trust Rules, which prescribes a ceiling of Rs.6,500/-
for disbursement at 8.33% towards the pension fund against the statutory
enhancement to the tune of Rs.15,000/- by notification dated 22.8.2014, as
the issue has already been dealt with by the Apex Court, in the case of R. C.
Gupta Vs. RPFC, (2018) 14 SCC 809 , and, therefore, the rejection of the
joint option given by the petitioner goes against the aforesaid settled law. He
also submits that the ratio of the judgment in R. C. Gupta has been
(supra)
re-affirmed in the case of EPFO versus Sunil Kumar B., reported in (2023)
12 SCC 701.
9. Adding his arguments, he submits that the respondent authorities, relying
upon the ceiling provided under the Trust Rules, have declined to accept the
joint option whereas the same is against the Scheme, 1995, which is a
statutory scheme and has the overriding effect over the Trust Rules. He
added that the absence of a procedural clause cannot defeat the statutory
right of higher pension conferred under Section 66(9) of the 1952 and the
Scheme, 1995. Therefore, the restriction in the form of a ceiling would have
no statutory restriction.

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
5
10. Giving strength to his arguments, he submits that alone higher pension to
the petitioners would not impose any additional financial burden on the
employer or the pension fund as both the employer and employees have
already contributed on the actual salary which exceeded the ceiling as is
prescribed under the Trust Rules, and, in this view, the adjustment of the
8.33% from the employer share towards the pension fund is merely a
statutory diversion.
11. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that so far as paragraph 27 AA
expressly provides that any beneficial amendment to the Central Scheme
applies automatically to employees of exempted establishment, even before
formal amendment of Trust Rules and further, since the Scheme, 1995, is a
beneficial scheme, therefore, the same cannot be denied by way of any rule
or provision of the Trust Rules and if it is permitted so, the statutory right as
enshrined in the Scheme, 1995, shall be unfurnished. Thus submission is that
the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities, by which the joint
option has been refuted and the payment of the higher pension from the
actual deduction from the salary of the petitioners, is unjustified and,
therefore, the orders impugned may be quashed and a writ of mandamus
may be issued to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to approve the
joint option of the petitioners submitted before him thereby providing the
enhanced pension in terms of the judgment and order dated 4.11.2022 passed
by the Apex Court in the case of EPFO Vs. Sunil Kumar B.( supra ).
12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 &
2 submits that Trust Rules are framed by HAL under the statutory provision
which provides a ceiling of contribution by the employer and the employees,
and, therefore, the same restricts the contribution on the actual salary as is
prescribed under the Scheme, 1995. It is further submitted that the Trust
Rules do not provide any permit for exercising any joint option either by the
employer or by the employee to contribute over and above the ceiling limit
and since there is no amendment in the Trust Rules regarding the ceiling
limit, therefore, it is binding upon the petitioners. He submits that there is no
conflict between the Act, 1952, and the Rules, 1995, that the Trust Rules
permit to contribute only on the ceiling limit provided in the Act, 1952 and,
therefore, submission is that there is no illegality or informality in the
decision making of the authority as the same has been taken in complete
adherence to the judgment and order passed by the Apex Court.
13. Mr. P. K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the HAL, submits that the
employer has already been agreed for joint option, for payment of pension,
on higher pay to the petitioners/employees within the prescribed time frame
and the contribution has been deducted from the pay of the petitioners
accordingly, therefore there would be no extra financial burden upon the

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
6
employer or employees at this stage. He submits that the Trust Rules would
not come in the way of the mandate of the Act, 1952, as well as the Scheme,
1995 and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the higher pension as per
the actual deduction, on the actual pay of the petitioners.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the
14.
records, it is apparent that the petitioners are the retired employees of the
HAL and after their retirement, the issue has arisen that whether they are
entitled for the payment of pension, on the ceiling amount, as prescribed
under the Trust Rules or the actual deduction, which has already been made
by the employer, and the contribution given by the employees/petitioners on
the actual salary, in furtherance to the provision of the Act, 1952, as well as
the Scheme, 1995 and as per the settled proposition of law.
15. When this Court examines the matter in facts and law, it reveals that
there is no dispute that the petitioners have been the employees of the HAL.
Further, it is also admission in between the parties that the contribution of
the employees and the employer have been deducted, on their actual salary.
It is also undisputed that the employer has no objection if the petitioners are
paid the higher pension, on the actual deduction made on the salary of the
petitioners.
The dispute has arisen because of the provision of the Trust Rules. In
16.
fact the HAL is a Government of India Public Undertaking and engaged in
the manufacture and maintenance of the aircraft and defence systems. It
operates as an exempted establishment under Section 17 of the Act, 1952,
for the purpose of provident fund, through the Trust. The provision of the
Trust Rules, which are relevant, are the Rules 20.1 and 20.2.1, which read as
under:-
"20.1 Every member shall subscribe to the Fund every month sum equal to 12% of his
monthly running Basic Pay, DA and retaining allowance if any (without limit in Pay)
equal contribution payable by the company to the Fund of members (for P.F only).
20.2 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION TO THE FUND
The employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contribution payable to the
Provident Fund by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the Act from
time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for which the contributions
are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the
provisions of section 7Q. of the Act for any delay in payment of nay dues towards the
Board of Trustees,
20.2.1 Out of Company's Contribution 8.33% of member's wages subject to a
maximum of Rs. 6500.00 of eligible members shall be diverted to Member's Pension
Contribution and shall be remitted to The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
U.P. within 15 days of the close of every month. The cost of remittance shall he born

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
7
by the employer provided that where the pay of the member exceeds Rs. 6500/- per
month, the balance of the employer contribution shall be credited to the member's
individual account the establishment is not liable to make any contribution in respect
of voluntary contribution. The contribution of employees pension fund shall be
applicable only in case if the employee is a member of employees pension scheme
1995."
The pension scheme for the Employees of the HAL was adopted by
17.
introducing Section 6A, in the Act of 1952, with effect from 16.11.1995, and
the quantum of the pension is to be fixed, as per the formula specified in
paragraph 12 of the scheme. Section 7 of the Act 1952 empowers the Central
Government to amend the scheme, both prospectively and retrospectively,
subject to compliance with certain procedures provided in this provision.
Except apart, the trust rules following provisions, which are relevant with
respect to the contribution of the employer and employees and the payment
of pension, are extracted herein under:-
"i. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has
been enacted with the primary objective to provide for compulsory provident fund,
pension, and deposit-linked insurance benefits to employees working in factories and
other establishments.
a. Section 6 - Contribution towards provident fund - Both the employer and
employee are required to contribute equally to the Provident Fund on the
employee's basie wages, dearness allowance, and retaining allowance, if any.
The standard rate of contribution is ten percent, which may be enhanced to
twelve percent by the Central Government for specific establishments.
Employees may voluntarily contribute more, though the employer is not bound
to match the excess.
It empowers the Central
b. Section 6A Employees' Pension Scheme -
Government to frame the Employees' Pension Scheme for providing
superannuation, retirement, disablement, and family pensions. The Scheme is
administered by the Central Board of Trustees.
c. Section 17-Power to Exempt
authorises the appropriate Government to exempt any
Section 17(1)
establishment from all or any provisions of the Provident Fund Scheme if its
own fund provides benefits not less favourable than those prescribed under the
Act. Such exemption may be granted prospectively or retrospectively, but only
after consultation with the Central Board.
Section 17 (1A) The employer of an exempted establishment must constitute a
Board of Trustees to administer the fund, maintain detailed accounts, submit
returns, and invest monies as per Government directions.
Section 17(1C) Exemption from the Pension Scheme This Section allows the

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
8
Government to exempt an establishment or class of establishments from the
operation of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, if employees are covered
by another pension scheme that offers benefits at par or more favourable than
those under the statutory Scheme. The exemption is subject to prescribed
conditions, particularly regarding the pattern of investment of the pension fund
and other safeguards notified by the Government.
Section 17(6) -Employer's Obligation of Exempted Establishments-This Section
provides that, subject to sub-section (IC), the employer of an exempted
establishment or of an exempted employee of an establishment to which the
provisions of the Employees' Pension Scheme apply shall, notwithstanding any
exemption granted under sub-section (1) or (2), continue to pay to the
Employees' Pension Fund such portion of the employer's contribution to its
provident fund as may be specified in the Pension Scheme, within the time and
manner prescribed therein. This provision ensures that the obligation to
contribute towards the statutory Pension Fund remains unaffected by any
exemption, thereby safeguarding employees' entitlement to pensionary benefits
under the Act.
ii. Employee's Provident fund Scheme 1952 has been framed by the Central
Government exercising the power providing under sec. 5 of the EPF and MP Act,
1952.
a. Paragraph 26(6): provides that, notwithstanding anything contained
elsewhere in the Scheme, an officer not below the rank of Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner may, on a joint written request made by an employee and
his employer, permit such employee to be enrolled as a member of the Fund or
to contribute on a salary exceeding Rs. 15,000/-per month (initially 5000/-,
later enhanced to 6500/-), if he is already a member. Upon such enrollment,
the employee becomes entitled to all the benefits and is subject to all the
conditions of the Fund, provided that the employer furnishes a written
undertaking to pay the prescribed administrative charges and to comply with
all statutory provisions applicable to such employee.
b. Paragraph 27AA provides that all exemptions already granted or to be
granted under Section 17 of the Act or under Paragraph 27A of the Scheme
shall be subject to the terms and conditions specified in Appendix A."
18. At the earlier stage, when the respondent department declined to
entertain the joint option, the matter went up to the Apex Court wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Gupta ( ) has held that the
supra
right of joint option of the employees of the HAL would have no cut-off
date, and, therefore, after the amendment under the scheme of 1995, the
employees would have the right to take the joint option. The relevant
paragraphs of the aforementioned judgment is quoted herein under:-
" 8. A further argument has been made on behalf of the Provident Fund Commissioner

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
9
that the appellant employees had already exercised their option under Para 26(6) of
the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme. Para 26(6) is in the following terms:
" 26. Classes of employees entitled and required to join the fund *.—(1)-(5)
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph, an officer not
below the rank of an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, on the joint
request in writing, of any employee of a factory or other establishment to which
this Scheme applies and his employer, enroll such employee as a member or allow
him to contribute more than [ Substituted by Notification No. S-350/2/2/96-SS II
dated 4-5-2001, for "rupees five thousand". Earlier the words "rupees five
thousand" were substituted by GSR 718(E), dated 23-9-1994, for the words
"rupees three thousand and five hundred" (w.e.f. 1-10-1994).] [six thousand five
hundred rupees] of his pay per month if he is already a member of the fund and
thereupon such employee shall be entitled to the benefits and shall be subject to
the conditions of the fund, provided that the employer gives an undertaking in
writing that he shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with
all statutory provisions in respect of such employee.
9. We do not see how exercise of option under Para 26 of the Provident Fund
Scheme can be construed to estop the employees from exercising a similar option
under Para 11(3). If both the employer and the employee opt for deposit against
the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, exercise of option under Para 26 of
the Provident Scheme is inevitable. Exercise of the option under Para 26(6) is a
necessary precursor to the exercise of option under Clause 11(3). Exercise of such
option, therefore, would not foreclose the exercise of a further option under
Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme unless the circumstances warranting such
foreclosure are clearly indicated.
10. The above apart in a situation where the deposit of the employer's share at
12% has been on the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, we do not see how
the Provident Fund Commissioner could have been aggrieved to file the LPA
before the Division Bench of the High Court. All that the Provident Fund
Commissioner is required to do in the case is an adjustment of accounts which in
turn would have benefited some of the employees. At best what the Provident
Commissioner could do and which we permit him to do under the present order is
to seek a return of all such amounts that the employees concerned may have taken
or withdrawn from their provident fund account before granting them the benefit
of the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Once such a return is made
in whichever cases such return is due, consequential benefits in terms of this order
will be granted to the said employees."
19. Vide the aforesaid judgment and order, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
categorically held that the joint options presented on or before the 31st of
January 2015, shall be accepted by the respondent, as the cut-off date has not
been accepted by the Apex Court in presenting joint option. It has also been
provided that after remittance of the differential contribution to the EPFO by

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
10
the employees along with the interest, a higher pension shall be disbursed.
20. This issue has again been brought before the Apex Court, in the case of
EPFO Vs. Sunil Kumar B. (supra), wherein it has been held as under :-
"50.We accordingly hold and direct:
(i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August
2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we
have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we
shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent sub-
paragraphs.
(ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R.
609(E) dated 22 August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted
establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments.
Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have
already directed.
(iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of
the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1 September 2014. will be
guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme.
(iv) Th The members of the scheme, 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. Their right to exercise option before 1? September 2014 stands
crystallized in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The
scheme as it stood before 1 September 2014 did not provide for any cut-off 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. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of
joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph
11(4) of the pension scheme.
There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment scheme, which, was
quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees
who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the
interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to
exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme,
under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months.
We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with.
(v) The employees who had retired prior to 1 September 2014 without exercising any
option under paragraph 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.
(vi) The employees who have retired before 1 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.

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
11
(vii) The 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. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this
part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to
make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated
from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include
enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what
steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the
scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till
such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees contribution
shall be as stop gap measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of
alteration to the scheme that may be made.
(viii) Will We do not find any flow in altering the basis for computation of pensionable
salary .
(ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta
(supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre-amendment)
pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives
contained in the said Judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our
directions contained earlier in this paragraph.
(x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C)
Nos. 619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in
the above terms.""
21. The issue under the consideration before the Apex Court was, whether
the amended provisions, which imposed cut-off date and restricted higher
pension entitlement only to those employees, who had exercised a joint
option earlier, were valid in light of the judgment and order rendered in the
case of R.C. Gupta ( supra ), and the Apex Court, while upholding the
validity of the 2014 amendment in the 'Scheme 1995', held that those, who
did not exercise an option as contemplated in Proviso 2, paragraph 11 (3) of
the pension scheme [as it was before the 2014 amendment] would be entitled
to exercise the option under paragraph 11(4) of the post-amendment scheme,
and their right to exercise the option before 1st September 2014 stands
crystallized. Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the law rendered in
the case of R.C. Gupta ( ), while holding that no cut-off date existed
supra
under the pre-amended paragraph 11 (3) of the scheme of 1995, and
restricting higher pension benefits to those who had earlier exercised the
option, would be contrary and a window of joint option has been reopened,
thus allowed all eligible employees and employers to jointly apply for higher
pension under the amended scheme.
Now, coming to another reason, which has been assigned by the
22.
Regional Fund Commissioner, is that since Rule 20.1 and 20.2.1 of the trust

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
12
rules made under the Act of 1952 provide the cap/limitation, and, therefore,
the joint option for higher contribution on actual salary has been rejected.
23. It is worth consideration that Rule 38 of the Trust Rules says that the
more beneficial scheme shall be made applicable to the employees. Rule 38
of the Trust Rules Rules reads as under:-
Rule 38. ALTERATIONS OR AMMENDMENT IN THE RULES,
These Rules may from time to time be altered, enlarged or reduced in such manner as
the board may consider desirable, for the proper implementation of the Rules or for
the administration thereof including difficulties in the matter of payment of
accumulations in the Fund to members after they cease to be such members, and each
member shall be bound by the amendments, additions or otherwise in the same
manner as in the original rules.
Provided that all such amendments shall have received the prior approval of the
Commissioner of Income-Tax and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (or in
the event of any appeal by the company, the central Provident Fund Commissioner). A
copy of all amendments to the Rules shall be sent to the Commissioners.
Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the
existing rules of the establishment, shall be made applicable of them automatically
pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.
24. Further Rule 42 Speaks about the overriding effect and it says that if the
Trust Rules are silent on any matter, the provisions of the scheme will
prevail. Thereafter Rule 42.2 provides that if any provision of Rules
conflicts with any provision of the scheme 1952, the letter shall always deem
to prevail. The Rule 42.3 also talks about that question with respect to more
beneficial scheme will be decided by the Regional Provident Commissioner
concerned. Rule 42.1, 42.2, 42.3 are extracted as under:-
Rule 42. Statutory provisions to have overriding effect:
If these rules are silent on any matter, the provisions of the scheme will prevail, and
that the rules shall be brought at per by providing for matching benefits from the date
of introduction of provision of any new benefit in the scheme.
42.1 in the absence of any specific provisión in these rules of if any provision of the
rules is less beneficial than the corresponding provision of the employees provident
fund & Misc, provisions Act 1952 and the employees provident fund scheme 1952,
framed there under the latter provisions shall prevail, mutates mutandis.
42.2 Where any provisions of rules conflicts with any provisions of the EPF. Scheme
1952, the latter shall always be deemed to prevail.
42.3 Question whether a particular rule is beneficial or not shall be decided by the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner whose decision shall be final.
25. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it culled out that while

WRIA No. 504 of 2026
13
framing Trust Rules, the framers were aware of focusing to adopt the more
beneficial scheme for the members/employees and further in case of any less
beneficial provision of the Rules than the scheme, there is deeming provision
that the provision of scheme shall prevail.
In fact, the Act of 1952 as well as the scheme of 1995, amended time to
26.
time, envisage the beneficial provisions to the employees of the respondent
department and the other establishments. The ceiling, which has been
prescribed, under the Rules of the Trust, made under the Act, if contrary to
the object of the beneficial scheme, would be unsustainable to that extent as
the same is less beneficial.
It is also relevant in this regard that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
27.
of R.C. Gupta ( supra ) and EPFO versus Sunil Kumar B ( supra ) has allowed
the joint option scheme with higher contribution, and the cut-off date, as was
made in the amendment, in the scheme, was found unsustainable. Therefore,
if any provision is contrary to the settled proposition of law, as is apparent
from the Trust Rules, which curtails the beneficial right of the employees, it
would be a nullity to that extent. Even otherwise the scheme of 1995 has
also got the statutory strength and the provisions of the Trust rules would
have no overriding effect over, to the sphere of the intent and object of
promulgation of the Act of 1952 and the scheme of 1995.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussions, this Court finds
28.
merit in the writ petition. Ergo, the present writ petition, including the
connected writ petitions having identical issues, are hereby allowed , and the
orders under challenge, in all the connected writ petitions, are quashed.
29. It is directed that the respondent no.2 shall take fresh decision, in light of
the observations made herein above and the prevalent laws.

May 8, 2026
Ram Murti

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
Digitally signed by :-
RAM MURTI YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench