### Employees Opting for Higher Pension Under Unamended Scheme Prior to Retirement Cannot Be Denied Higher Benefits

The petitioners are retired employees of various cooperative banks and federations in Chhattisgarh who superannuated prior to 01.09.2014.

During their service, they contributed to the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) on actual salaries exceeding the statutory wage ceiling.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in R.C. Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2018), which held there was no cut-off date for exercising options for higher pension under the unamended scheme, the EPFO issued a circular on 23.03.2017 inviting such options.

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

However, following the later Supreme Court judgment in EPFO v. Sunil Kumar B. (2022), the respondent-EPFO issued the impugned orders in 2023 reducing the petitioners' pensions and restoring lower rates, contending that employees who retired prior to 01.09.2014 without exercising an option under Para 11(3) were ineligible.

1. Whether members who retired prior to 01.09.2014 but had exercised their option under Paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment Scheme are entitled to the benefit of higher pension.

2. Whether the EPFO is legally justified in reducing the higher pension already granted and implemented in favor of the petitioners based on a re-interpretation of the Supreme Court's directives.

The court primarily applied Paragraph 11(3) and 11(4) of the Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS), 1995 regarding the determination of pensionable salary based on actual wages.

It relied on the ratio in R.C. Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2018) 14 SCC 809, which established that the proviso to Para 11(3) did not contain a restrictive cut-off date for exercising options.

It further applied the categorization settled in EPFO v. Sunil Kumar B. (2023) 12 SCC 701, specifically distinguishing between Paragraph 50.7 (pre-2014 retirees who never opted) and Paragraph 50.8 (pre-2014 retirees who had exercised the option).

The Court analyzed the eligibility of the petitioners through the lens of the Supreme Court's directions in Sunil Kumar B.

The respondents argued that under Para 50.7 of that judgment, the petitioners were ineligible as they retired before 01.09.2014.

However, the Court observed that the petitioners had indeed submitted joint option forms and deposited differential amounts in accordance with the 23.03.2017 circular, which was issued to implement the R.C. Gupta ruling.

The Court interpreted the term "any" in the phrase "without exercising any option" to mean "none whatsoever".

Because the petitioners had exercised their options and the EPFO had already verified and revised their PPOs, the Court held they fell under Para 50.8 (retirees who exercised options) rather than Para 50.7 (retirees who did not).

Consequently, the higher pension was not a "mistake" to be rectified under the doctrine in Union of India v. Narendra Singh, but a lawful entitlement based on settled law.

The High Court quashed the impugned orders that reduced the petitioners' pensions.

The EPFO was directed to restore the higher pension immediately and release all arrears within 90 days, failing which the amount would carry 6% interest per annum.

All connected writ petitions were allowed.