### Employees Exercising Pre-Retirement Option Under Unamended Pension Scheme are Entitled to Higher Pension Without Cut-Off Date

The petitioners are retired employees of various cooperative banks and federations in Chhattisgarh who superannuated prior to September 1, 2014.

Under the Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS), 1995, they initially received pensions based on statutory wage ceilings.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in *R.C. Gupta v. RPFC* (2018), which held there was no cut-off date for exercising options for higher pension, the EPFO issued a circular on March 23, 2017, inviting joint options from retirees.

The petitioners submitted joint options, deposited differential contributions (arrears of PF), and were subsequently granted higher pensions via revised Pension Payment Orders (PPOs).

However, following the 2022 judgment in *EPFO v. Sunil Kumar B.*, the EPFO issued the impugned orders in 2023, reducing the petitioners' pensions back to the original lower rates and discontinuing the higher benefits previously granted.

1. Whether the EPFO’s action of withdrawing higher pensions initially granted to pre-2014 retirees, who had already exercised joint options and deposited arrears, is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the petitioners’ cases fall under the restrictive category of Paragraph 50.7 or the protected category of Paragraph 50.8 of the *Sunil Kumar B.* judgment.

The Court applied Paragraph 11 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, regarding the determination of pensionable salary.

Paragraph 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952, concerning contributions on higher wages.

It relied on the precedent in *R.C. Gupta v. RPFC (2018)*, which established that the proviso to Rule 11(3) contained no cut-off date for exercising options for higher pension.

It further applied the directions from *EPFO v. Sunil Kumar B. (2023)*, specifically Paragraph 50.8, which mandates that employees who retired before September 1, 2014, upon exercising options under the 1995 Scheme, remain covered by the unamended provisions.

The Court analyzed the classification of retirees under the *Sunil Kumar B.* decision.

The EPFO argued that under Paragraph 50.7, those who retired before September 1, 2014, without exercising options were ineligible.

However, the Court observed that the petitioners had indeed exercised "any" option—specifically joint options under the post-*R.C. Gupta* circular of 2017—and had fulfilled the requirement of depositing the differential amount into the Pension Fund.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioners had submitted these options and the EPFO had already revised their PPOs, they were governed by Paragraph 50.8 (covering those who retired after exercising options) rather than 50.7 (those who never opted).

The Court rejected the EPFO's claim of "rectifying a mistake," noting that higher pension was granted in strict adherence to the law then prevailing and affirmed by the Supreme Court.

It quashed the impugned orders that had reduced the pension amounts.

The Court directed the EPFO to restore the higher pension immediately and release all arrears (the difference between the higher and reduced pension) within 90 days.

If not paid within the stipulated period, the arrears shall carry interest at 6% per annum.

The Court concluded that under the original Scheme, there was no cut-off date to opt for higher pension for those who exercised the option prior to or in accordance with the judicial directives.