EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION Vs. SUNIL KUMAR B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) In this judgment, we shall deal with the legality of certain amendments and modifications made by the Central Government to the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 ("1995 Scheme"). Such scheme has been made in pursuance of, inter-alia, Sec. 6A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("the Act"). Such changes, inter-alia, are sought be effected in paragraphs 3, 6, 11, 12 and 14 of the 1995 scheme. The Act originally did not provide for any pension scheme and Sec. 6A was introduced to the said Act by way of an amendment made in 1995. The amendment of 1995 contemplated formulation of a scheme for employees pension and the pension fund was to comprise of deposit of 8.33 per cent of the employers contribution made towards provident fund corpus as per the prevailing Statue. Paragraph 11 of the scheme dealt with determination of pensionable salary. At that point of time, maximum pensionable salary was Rs.5000.00 and this sum had been enhanced subsequently to Rs.6500.00. Pensionable salary was raised to Rs.15000.00 by a notification dtd. 22/8/2014 [numbered G.S.R. 609 (E)], which was to be effective from 1/9/2014. This notification brought certain other modifications in the scheme mainly restricting its coverage and we shall discuss these modifications later in this judgment.

(3.) In the appeals before us, judgments of the High Courts of Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi are assailed. In the case of P. Sasikumar and Others vs. Union of India (UOI) Represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India Ministry of Labour and Department of Employment and Others [in Writ Petition (C) No. 13120 of 2015], a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in its judgment delivered on 12/10/2018 set aside the Employees Pension Amendment (Scheme), 2014 conceived in G.S.R. 609 (E). The Delhi High Court in its judgment delivered on 22/5/2019 in the case of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. [in Writ Petition (C) No. 5678 of 2018] followed the view expressed by the Kerala High Court and quashed a circular issued by the provident fund authorities on 31/5/2017 precluding exempted establishments from the benefits of higher pension. In a decision delivered on 28/8/2019 in the case of Union of India and Others vs. Jale Singh and Others [in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 436 of 2019] a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court also expressed the same opinion. Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No. 3289 of 2021, SLP (C) No. 3290 of 2021, SLP (C) No. 2465 of 2021 and SLP (C) No. 3287 of 2021 are directed against the aforesaid judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and a subsequent decision of a Bench of equal strength delivered on 24/9/2019 in the same line. The appeals originating from SLP (C) Nos. 15063-15064 of 2022 are against the judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered on 22/5/2019, whereas in appeals having their roots in SLP (C) No. 1366 of 2021, SLP (C) No. 1738 of 2021, judgments of the Delhi High Court delivered following the case of Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh (supra) have been assailed. In another judgment delivered by the same Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. [in Writ Petition (C) No. 602 of 2015] on the same day, i.e. 12/10/2018, the aforesaid notification of 22/8/2014 was invalidated. That judgment is under challenge in the appeals in connection with SLP (C) Nos. 16721-16722 of 2019. In a contempt action brought before the Kerala High Court by aspiring beneficiaries of the pension scheme for implementation of the directions issued in the judgment dtd. 12/10/2018, certain directions have been issued by the Kerala High Court. The judgment to that effect delivered on 6/11/2020 is impugned in SLP (C) No. 8547 of 2021.