### Employees retired pre-2014 having exercised Para 11(3) options are entitled to higher pensionary 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 on wages exceeding the statutory ceiling of Rs. 6,500/-.

Following the Supreme Court's ruling in *R.C. Gupta v. RPFC* (2018), which held there was no cut-off date for exercising options for higher pension under the unamended Scheme, and a corresponding EPFO circular dated 23.03.2017, the petitioners submitted joint options and deposited differential arrears.

Consequently, the EPFO revised their Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) and granted higher pensions.

However, the EPFO subsequently issued impugned orders (e.g., dated 22.03.2023) reducing their pensions back to the original lower rates, citing the Supreme Court’s later judgment in *EPFO v. Sunil Kumar B.* (2022).

Whether the EPFO’s action in reducing the higher pension previously granted to the petitioners is legal and justified in light of the Supreme Court's directions in *R.C. Gupta* and *Sunil Kumar B.*?

Whether employees who retired prior to 01.09.2014, having already exercised an option under the unamended Paragraph 11(3) of the Pension Scheme, are entitled to continue receiving higher pension benefits?

The court primarily applied Paragraph 11(3) of the unamended Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, and Paragraph 11(4) of the post-2014 amended Scheme regarding pensionable salary.

It relied on *R.C. Gupta & Ors. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner* (2018) 14 SCC 809, which established that the dates in Para 11(3) are not cut-off dates and a beneficial scheme should not be defeated by technical timelines.

Furthermore, it applied the classification of members established in *EPFO v. Sunil Kumar B.* (2023) 12 SCC 701, specifically distinguishing between Paragraph 50.7 (those who retired without exercising any option) and Paragraph 50.8 (those who retired after exercising the option).

The court analyzed whether the petitioners fell under the exclusion category of Para 50.7 or the protection category of Para 50.8 of the *Sunil Kumar B.* judgment.

The EPFO argued that under Para 50.7, employees retired before 01.09.2014 without exercising an option "exited" the scheme and are ineligible.

The court rejected this, noting that "any option" has a wide amplitude, and since the petitioners had actually exercised joint options (prompted by the *R.C. Gupta* ruling and the 2017 circular) and deposited differential contributions which the EPFO accepted, they were covered under Para 50.8.

The court reasoned that since the Supreme Court in *Sunil Kumar B.* affirmed the *R.C. Gupta* finding—that no cut-off date existed in the pre-2014 proviso—the EPFO could not unilaterally withdraw the higher pension benefits on the claim of "rectifying a mistake".

The court further noted that the EPFO’s financial difficulty argument was unsubstantiated, as the petitioners paid their contributions from their provident fund, and the arrears paid to them were legally due under the revised PPOs.

The court quashed the impugned orders reducing the pensions and directed the EPFO to restore the higher pensions forthwith.

It further ordered that any arrears resulting from the unlawful reduction be released within 90 days, failing which an interest rate of 6% per annum would apply.

The writ petitions were allowed.