N.V. GOPINATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.

(2.) THE petitioners in the Writ Petition are the retired employees of the 4th respondent. Admittedly, the petitioners were covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioners had salary above Rs. 6500/ -, and are stated to have exercised an option under Section 26(6) of the Act. However, the Provident Fund Organization disputes the exercise of joint option by the employer and the employee; and asserts that it has not been done.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that such a deduction was made by the Organization without reference to the statute. The cut -off date prescribed being 01.12.2004 is also against the statutory provisions and does not have any nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is the argument. This Court has by judgment in W.P.(C) Nos. 6643 & 9929 of 2007, dated 04.11.2011, held that the cut -off date prescribed is without jurisdiction and that the Organization could not have retained the 8.33% of the employer's contribution, proportionate to the salary in excess of Rs. 6,500/ - in the Provident Fund Account and that it ought to have been credited to the Pension Scheme. The aforesaid judgment, of a learned Single Judge was also confirmed in appeal. The amounts, being 8.33% contribution in excess of the earlier prescribed limit of Rs. 6,500/ - in any event, have been retained with the Provident Fund Organization and what would be required to comply, with the judgments of this Court, is only book adjustments.