Madras HC Allows Ashok Leyland Workers’ Higher-Pension Plea Based on Actual Wages, Despite EPFO’s Plea to Await Supreme Court Ruling

The petitioners challenged the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner’s order dated 22 January 2025 rejecting their joint options to contribute to the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 on actual salary.

The rejection was based on the finding that the rules of Ashok Leyland’s exempted provident fund trust did not permit the employer to contribute to the Pension Fund on higher wages, making the joint options invalid.

A Division Bench had earlier allowed the petition with a batch of cases on 9 July 2026, but this petition was remanded to the Single Judge after the EPFO stated that it had not received the case papers necessary to determine whether the matter fell within the batch ruling.

The respondents’ counsel conceded that the Division Bench’s order covered the petitioners’ case, but sought an adjournment sine die because the respondents had challenged the ruling before the Supreme Court and said that contempt proceedings had been stayed.

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking certiorari and mandamus in relation to the rejection of joint options under paragraph 11(4) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.

The Court relied on the Division Bench’s order dated 9 July 2026, which had allowed the relevant batch of petitions; the respondents’ counsel conceded that the order covered this case.

The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s order dated 8 September 2026, which the respondents described as staying contempt proceedings arising from the Division Bench’s order.

The judgment does not set out or independently analyse the substantive legal test under paragraph 11(4).

Because the respondents conceded that the Division Bench’s 9 July 2026 order covered the petitioners’ case, the Single Judge treated the merits as squarely governed by that order and allowed the petition accordingly.

The Court declined to keep the matter pending indefinitely: it noted that the petition had already been allowed before being de-tagged and considered there to be no justification for an adjournment sine die.

It nevertheless preserved the respondents’ liberty to approach the Division Bench or the Supreme Court.

No costs were awarded, and the connected writ miscellaneous petitions were closed.