P&H HC Upholds Denial Of Higher EPS Pension To Retiree Who Retired And Turned 58 Before September 2014 Without Opting

In brief

The question

Whether an employee who retired before 1 September 2014 without exercising the option under Paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment EPS could claim higher pension on actual wages or exercise a joint option belatedly.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the petitioner, holding that she was not entitled to higher pension on actual wages because she had retired before 1 September 2014 without exercising the required Paragraph 11(3) option and had already exited the scheme.

It also directed

Finding no merit in the writ petition, it dismissed the petition and disposed of any pending applications.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged orders dated 1 July 2025 and 1 August 2025 rejecting her claim for higher pension calculated on her actual/higher salary.

p. 1

She relied on R.C. Gupta and a letter dated 20 May 2019 concerning a joint option, and argued that she remained entitled to exercise the option.

p. 2

The respondents contended that she had retired before 1 September 2014 without exercising the option under Paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (“EPS”).

pp. 2–4

The Court proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had retired before that date, had attained 58 years before September 2014, and had not exercised the stipulated option.

p. 8

02Issues

i.Whether an employee who retired before 1 September 2014 without exercising the option under Paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment EPS could claim higher pension on actual wages or exercise a joint option belatedly.

pp. 7–8

ii.Whether the impugned orders rejecting the petitioner’s higher-pension claim should be set aside.

p. 1, 8

03Law Applied

The Court considered Paragraphs 11(3) and 11(4) of the EPS, 1995, and the explanation to the definition of “member” in Paragraph 2(ix), under which membership ceases upon attaining 58 years or upon vesting of admissible benefits, whichever occurs earlier.

p. 7

It applied Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B., 2022 INSC 1171, including its distinction between members entitled to exercise an option under Paragraph 11(4) and employees who retired before 1 September 2014 without exercising the pre-amendment Paragraph 11(3) option, who were treated as having exited the scheme and not entitled to the benefit.

pp. 3–4, 7–8

The Court also considered R.C. Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2018) 14 SCC 809, and subsequent decisions, including Powergrid Retired Employees’ Association v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine 750, and Ram Nath v. Union of India, CWP-32035-2025, decided 30 October 2025, as affirmed in LPA No. 3764 of 2025.

pp. 2–7

04Reasoning

The Court held that the petitioner’s case fell within the category identified in Sunil Kumar B.: she had retired before 1 September 2014 without exercising the Paragraph 11(3) option and had attained 58 years before that date.

pp. 7–8

It considered the issue settled by the Supreme Court’s subsequent treatment of pre-amendment retirees and the coordinate-bench decisions applying that rule, and rejected the reliance on R.C. Gupta as a basis for granting the claimed benefit.

pp. 2–7

Because the petitioner had ceased to be a member and had not exercised the required option while eligible, the employer’s letter and her asserted continuing entitlement did not establish a right to higher pension.

pp. 2, 7–8