Sushil Gupta vs Union Of India And Others

CWP-26963
3-2025 (O&M)
1

IN
N THE HIGH COURT OF PU
UNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIG
GARH
(201)



CWP-26963-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 11.11.2026

Sushil Gupt
ta
...Petitioner
Versu
us
Union of Ind
dia and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KU
ULDEEP TIWARI
Present:



Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate
Mr. G.C. Garg, Advocate
Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kanverpal Singh Gill, Adv
for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.

Mr. Abhishek Batta, Advocate
Ms. Uma Saini, Advocate and
Ms. Ravinder Kaur, Advocate
for respondent No.4.

*
and
vocate

KULDEEP
P TIWARI , J.(ORAL)
1.
Through the instant writ peti
ition, the legality of order date
ed
01.07.2025
(Annexure P-11), passed by t
the respondent No.2, as well a
as,
order dated
d 01.08.2025 (Annexure P-12),
passed by the respondent No.
4,
respectively
y, is put to challenge as the cl
laim of the petitioner for high
her
wages, to b
be calculated on the basis of h
her actual/higher salary, has bee
en
rejected.
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-26963
3-2025 (O&M)
2

2.
Learned counsel for the petitio
oner, at the very outset, has place
ed
reliance up
on the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in
‘R.C. Gupt
ta and others vs. Regional
Provident Fund Commissione
er
Employees
Fund Organization and others
s’ (2018) 14 SCC 809, to subm
mit
that the cas
se of the petitioner is squarely c
covered with the ratio laid dow
wn
therein, and
d despite that the impugned orde
ers have been passed. Thereafte
er,
he draws th
he attention of this Court tow
wards the letter dated 20.05.201
19
(Annexure
P-3/A), whereby, the employ
yer of the petitioner intimate
ed
regarding ex
xercise of the joint option. He s
submitted that once the employ
yer
had exercis
sed the joint option, thereby,
no reasons for the authoriti
es
concerned,
to decline the relief which has
already been crystallized by th
he
Hon’ble Sup
preme Court in the judgment (su
upra). He further submits that th
he
impugned o
orders have been passed in a m
most mechanical manner witho
ut
examining t
the verdict of the Hon’ble Supre
eme Court in the above judgmen
nt.
Finally, he
submits that the petitioner is st
till a member of the scheme, an
nd
therefore sh
he has a right to exercise the optio
on.
3.
Mr. Rajesh Hooda, learned cou
unsel representing the responden
nts
No.2 and 3
, vociferously opposed the subm
mission made by learned couns
sel
for the peti
itioner. He submits that the iss
sue involved in R.C. Gupta an
nd
others (sup
pra) was distinct, whereas, the
case of the present petitioner
is
squarely cov
vered with the judgment passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in
‘Employees
s Provident Fund Organization
n vs. Sunil Kumar B.’ 2022 (4
(4)
S.C.T. 674,
wherethrough, the Hon’ble Sup
preme Court had already held th
hat
the employe
ees, who had retired prior to 01
1.09.2014, without exercising an
ny
option unde
er Paragraph 11(3) of the pre-a
amendment scheme have alread
MANPREET SINGH dy
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-26963
3-2025 (O&M)
3

exited from
the membership thereof, they w
would not be entitled to the benef
fit
of this judgm
ment. The relevant is extracted h
hereinafter :-
“44. (iv) The members
rs of the scheme, who did n
ot
exercise option, as co
ontemplated in the proviso
to
paragraph 11(3) of the p
pension scheme (as it was befor
re
the 2014 Amendment) wo
ould be entitled to exercise optio
on
under paragraph 11(4)
of the post amendment schem
me.
Their right to exercise o
option before 1st September 201
14
stands crystallized in th
he judgment of this Court in th
he
case of R.C. Gupta (supr
ra). The scheme as it stood befo
re
1st September 2014 did
d not provide for any cutoff da
ate
and thus those membe
ers shall be entitled to exercis
se
option in terms of para
agraph11(4) of the scheme, as
it
stands at present. Their
exercise of option shall be in th
he
nature of joint options c
covering pre-amended paragrap
ph
11(3) as also the amende
ed paragraph 11(4) of the pensio
on
scheme.
There was uncertainty
as regards validity of the po
ost
amendment scheme, whi
ich was quashed by the aforesa
aid
judgments of the thre
ee High Courts. Thus, all th
he
employees who did not ex
xercise option but were entitled
to
do so but could not due t
to the interpretation on cutoff da
ate
by the authorities, ough
t to be given a further chance
to
exercise their option.
Time to exercise option und
der
paragraph 11(4) of
f the scheme, under thes
se
circumstances, shall stan
nd extended by a further period
of
four months. We are giv
ving this direction in exercise
of
our jurisdiction under A
Article 142 of the Constitution
of
India.
Rest of the requirement
ts as per the amended provisio
on
shall be complied with.
(v) The employees who h
had retired prior to 1st Septemb
er
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
2014 without exercising
g any option under paragrap
ph

CWP-26963
3-2025 (O&M)
4

11(3) of the pre-amendm
ment scheme have already exite
ed
from the membership th
ereof. They would not be entitle
ed
to the benefit of this judg
gment.”
4.
He further submits that the si
imilarly situated employees hav
ve
again appro
oached the Hon’ble Supreme
e Court in ‘Powergrid Retire
ed
Employees’
’ Association (PREA) vs. Union
n of India and others’ 2025 SC
CC
Online 750.
. However, the Hon’ble Suprem
me Court refused to entertain the
eir
petition and
d the decision rendered in Sunil K
Kumar B. case (supra) was relie
ed
upon and
it was held that where the
petitioners had retired prior
to
01.09.2014,
without exercising their right t
to option, they are not entitled
to
the benefit o
of Paragraph 11(3) of the schem
me. The relevant paragraph of th
he
judgment (s
upra) is extracted hereinafter :-
“In view of the fact tha
at it is an admitted position th
at
these employees have re
etired prior to 01.09.2014 & th
at
too without exercising t
their option, we see no reason
to
entertain this petition in
exercise of our jurisdiction und
der
Article 32 of the Constitu
ution of India.”
5.
He next placed reliance upo
on the judgment passed by th
he
Coordinate
Bench of this Court, wherein,
, this issue was examined and
a
bunch of pe
etitions were decided through a v
verdict dated 24.09.2025, and aft
ter
relying upo
on Sunil Kumar B. (supra)
) case and Powergrid Retire
ed
Employees’
’ Association (PREA) (supra),
, held that the employees wh
ho
retired prior
r to 2014 amendment, which ca
ame into effect from 01.09.201
4,
without exe
ercising the stipulated option, are
e deemed to have been exited th
he
scheme and
d are not entitled to its benef
fit. The relevant paragraphs a
are
extracted he
ereunder :-
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-26963
3-2025 (O&M)
5

“10. Recently, a two-Jud
dge Bench of the Hon'ble Suprem
me
Court in Powergrid Re
etired Employees' Association
n's
case (supra) , while follo
owing the principle laid down
in
Sunil Kumar’s case (sup
pra) , dismissed a similar petitio
on,
wherein the petitioner
had retired prior to 01.09.201
14
without exercising their o
option.
11. The core issue in th
he present matter is "whether th
he
employees, who retired
d prior to 01.09.2014 witho
ut
having formally exercise
ed a joint option under the provis
so
to paragraph 11(3) of th
he pre-amended scheme, 1995, a
re
entitled to higher pensio
on?" is no longer res integra.
It
has been crystallized by
y the Hon'ble Supreme Court th
at
the employees, who re
etired before 2014 amendmen
nt,
which came into eff
fect from 01.09.2014, witho
ut
exercising the stipulate
ed option, are deemed to hav
ve
exited the scheme and
are not entitled to its benefi
fits
leaving no room for amb
biguity.”
6.
Learned counsel for the respo
ondents No.2 and 3, also submi
its
that a Coo
ordinate Bench of this Cou
urt, in CWP-32035-2025, title
ed
‘Ram Nath
h and others vs. Union of
India and others’ decided o
on
30.10.2025,
further reiterated the above fin
nding. The relevant paragraphs
of
the judgmen
nt are reproduced hereinafter :-
“2. Learned counsel fo
r the petitioners submit that th
he
petitioners are the ret
tired employees of the Rewa
ari
Central Cooperative Ban
nk Ltd. drawing pension under th
he
Employees' Pension Sch
heme, 1995 and contributed to th
he
EPF on their actual sala
ary throughout their service. The
ey
had exercised options
under para 26(6) of the EP
PF
Scheme during service a
and upon demand from responde
ent
No.3, they submitted join
nt options under para 11(3) of th
he
EPS, 1995 in the year 2
017 for pension on higher wage
MANPREET SINGH
es.
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-26963
3-2025 (O&M)
6

Further, respondent No.3
3 has returned these joint option
ns
on the ground that they
y were not exercised during th
he
service span and the sa
ame is contrary to the judgme
ent
rendered by the Hon'ble
e Apex Court in ‘R.C. Gupta v
vs.
Regional Provident F
Fund Commissioner Employe
es
Provident Fund Organ
nisation & Ors’ Civil Appe
eal
No.10013-10014 of 2016
6 dated 04.10.2016.
3. Learned counsel for
r the respondents submitted th
at
identical controversy rai
ised before this Court with regar
rd
to the right of the retir
rees prior to the year 2014 hav
ve
already been considere
ed and dismissed vide judgme
ent
dated 29.09.2025 passe
ed in CWP-35154-2024 titled a
as
‘Om Parkash vs. Union o
of India’.
4. Having heard the lear
rned counsel for both the partie
es,
it transpires that the peti
itioners in the present case retire
ed
before 01.09.2014 witho
ut exercising the stipulated optio
on
under paragraph 11(3)
. The law in this regard is n
no
longer res integra and h
has been settled by this Court an
nd
Hon'ble Apex Court i
in ‘Employees Provident Fun
nd
Organisation v. Sunil K
Kumar B’ 2022 INSC 1171 an
nd
‘Powergrid Retired Em
mployees' Association (Prea)
v.
Union of India’ Writ
Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 97
of
2025.”
7.
He further submits that the leg
gality of order dated 30.10.202
5,
passed in C
WP-32035-2025, has been furthe
er tested by the Division Bench
of
this Court, i
in LPA No.3764 of 2025 , titled
‘Ram Nath and others vs. Unio
on
of India an
nd others’ wherein, the Division
n Bench, has upheld the decisio
on
passed by le
earned Single Bench of this Cou
urt. The relevant paragraphs of th
he
said judgme
ent are extracted hereinafter :-
“3. Relying upon the af
foresaid facts, the learned Sing
gle
Judge dismissed the claim
m of the petitioners on the groun
MANPREET SINGH nd
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment

CWP-26963
3-2025 (O&M)
7

that within the permissib
ble period, i.e., up to 01.09.201
4,
none of the petitioners h
had exercised any option, and th
at
after the said cut-off dat
te, it was not open to them to d
do
so.
4. Though learned couns
sel for the appellants attempted
to
distinguish the case on
the ground that the judgment
in
Sunil Kumar B. (supra
a) is not applicable, we are n
ot
persuaded to accept su
uch contention. We find that th
he
findings recorded in par
ragraph 8, read together with th
he
observations of the Sup
upreme Court in paragraph 4
44,
clearly foreclose any ave
enue available to the appellants
to
exercise the option after
the cut-off date.”
8.
Further, learned counsel for th
he respondents No.2 and 3, reli
es
upon the ex
xplanation to the definition of ‘m
member’ as defined in Paragrap
ph
2 (ix) of the
e Employees Pension Scheme, 1
1995, whereby, an employee sha
all
cease to be
the member of Pension Fund fr
rom the date of attaining 58 yea
ars
of age or fr
from the date of vesting admiss
sible benefits under the Schem
me,
whichever i
is earlier, to submit that the peti
itioner, on attaining the age of 5
58
years, cease
es to be a member of the scheme
e and before that she has not opte
ed
for joint op
ption, thereby, disentitling her i
in view of the judgment referre
ed
(supra).
9.
This Court has heard the subm
missions made by both the learne
ed
counsel for
the parties, in length and is of th
he considered opinion that there
is
no merit in t
the submission made by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
10.
The issue involved in the insta
ant writ petition has already bee
en
crystallized
by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou
urt in the above mentioned thre
ee
judgments a
and has categorically held in Sun
nil Kumar B. (supra) case that th
he
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
employees,
who retired prior to 01.09.201
4, without exercising any optio
on

CWP-26963
3-2025 (O&M)
8

under Parag
graph 11(3) of the pre-amendm
ment scheme, have already exite
ed
from the me
embership thereof, and they wil
ll not be entitled to the benefit
of
this judgme
ent. In the instant case, there is n
no dispute with regard to the fa
act
that the peti
itioner had retired prior to 01.09
9.2014, and since she has attaine
ed
the age of
58 years prior to September,
2014, therefore, she has alread
dy
exited from
m the membership thereof, and
is not entitled for the asked f
for
benefit.
11.
Consequently, finding no meri
it in the instant writ petition, th
he
same is acco
ordingly, dismissed .
12.
Pending applications, if any, sta
and disposed of accordingly.


(KULDEEP TIWARI)
JUDGE

November 1
Manpreet




11, 2026
Whether speaking/reasoned
Whether reportable
: Yes
: Yes
MANPREET SINGH
2026.11.13 16:37
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment