Higher pension cannot be withdrawn or recovered where higher-salary contributions and joint options were accepted.

The petitioners were retired employees and members of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (“EPS”).

They alleged that, while in service, provident-fund contributions had been made on their actual/higher salaries rather than being limited to the statutory wage ceiling, and that they had received pension calculated on that basis.

The authorities later sought recovery of the higher pension, contending that there had been no valid joint option during the petitioners’ service, and withdrew or withheld the benefit.

The petitioners challenged the relevant communications and recovery notices under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

They relied on a prior Karnataka High Court order in W.P. No. 27440 of 2024 and connected matters, which had quashed similar actions.

1. Whether the authorities could withdraw or withhold higher pension, and demand repayment of pension already paid, on the ground that no valid joint option had been exercised during the petitioners’ service.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to restoration of higher pension calculated on contributions made on actual/higher salary, and payment of any resulting arrears.

The petitions arose under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and concerned benefits under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.

The Court applied the reasoning in its earlier decision in W.P. No. 27440 of 2024 and connected matters.

As recounted in the present order, that decision considered it material that higher contributions had entered the pension fund while the petitioners were members of the Scheme, that the joint options had been accepted and implemented before the Supreme Court’s decisions in R.C. Gupta and Sunil Kumar B., and that no cut-off date had been fixed.

The Court treated the petitions as materially similar to the matters decided in W.P. No. 27440 of 2024 and connected cases.

It adopted the earlier decision’s conclusion that, where higher-salary contributions had been made while the employees were members of the Scheme and the joint options had already been accepted and implemented, the authorities could not withhold the higher pension or demand repayment merely on the stated basis.

On that basis, it quashed the challenged communications and recovery notices and directed restoration of higher pension.

It quashed the impugned communications rejecting the petitioners’ higher-pension applications and the notices seeking repayment of higher pension.

The contesting respondents were directed to restore and pay higher pension based on contributions made on actual/higher salary and to pay any pension arrears within three months.

Any arrears unpaid within that period would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order until payment.

No order as to costs was made.