Facts
The petitioners, former employees who retired before 1 September 2014, claimed that contributions to the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 had been made on their actual salaries, above the statutory wage ceiling.
Source reference: paras. 1–2, pp. 6–9They challenged communications withdrawing their higher-pension benefit and notices seeking recovery of the higher pension already paid, and sought continuation of pension calculated on actual/higher salary.
Source reference: paras. 1–2, pp. 6–9The respondents did not appear despite an adjournment.
Source reference: para. 4, p. 11Issues
1. Whether the communications withdrawing the petitioners’ higher-pension benefit were liable to be quashed
Source reference: paras. 1–2, pp. 6–92. Whether the notices seeking repayment of higher pension already paid were liable to be quashed
Source reference: paras. 1–2, pp. 6–93. Whether the petitioners were entitled to restoration of higher pension based on contributions made on actual/higher salary, including any arrears
Source reference: para. 1, pp. 8–9; para. 5, pp. 12–13Law Applied
The dispute arose under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.
Source reference: para. 3, pp. 9–11The Court relied on its decision in W.P. No. 27440 of 2024 and connected matters, which considered R.C. Gupta and Sunil Kumar B. and held that, where higher-salary contributions had been made while the petitioners were members of the Scheme, and the joint option had been accepted and implemented before Sunil Kumar B., withdrawal of higher pension and demands to repay the difference were unsustainable.
Source reference: para. 3, pp. 9–11Reasoning
The Court noted the petitioners’ claim that contributions had been made on actual/higher salary and that their higher pension had subsequently been withdrawn, with recovery notices issued.
Source reference: para. 2, pp. 8–9As the respondents did not appear, the Court considered the cited decision in W.P. No. 27440 of 2024 and connected matters, which had held that higher-salary contributions and an accepted and implemented joint option supported continued higher-pension entitlement.
Source reference: paras. 3–5, pp. 9–12Applying that precedent, it granted the requested relief.
Source reference: para. 5, pp. 12–13Holding
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the communications rejecting the petitioners’ higher-pension applications and the notices demanding repayment of higher pension.
It directed the respondents to restore and pay higher pension based on contributions on actual/higher salary and to pay any 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.
Source reference: para. 5, pp. 12–13Original Court PDF
SWAMY SHETTYvsUNION OF INDIA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
