K. P RAJENDRAN 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 Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th and 5th respondent.

(2.) The petitioners in the Writ Petition are the employees of the 4th respondent. Admittedly, the petitioners are 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.) Be that as it may, it is admitted that the contribution to the Provident Fund being 12% of the total salary deducted as employees contribution and the 12% paid by the employer, were remitted to the Organization. As per the provisions of the Pension Scheme 8.33% of the contribution from the employer, is to be deducted and credited to the Pension Fund. However, in making such deduction, the Provident Fund Organization limited it to 8.33% of the maximum salary provided, ie., Rs.6500/ -. The balance contribution made by the employer for the salary in excess of Rs.6,500/ -, was fully retained in the Provident Fund Account itself.