High Court : A very good judgment granting STAY on the action of EPFO wherein they had first revised the pension but then took U-turn and issued a notice to the petitioner that he was not entitled for higher pension in view of Circular dt. 22.8.2014.
Hon’ble Court also stated that Taking into the entirety of the fact and the order of the Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court which appears to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court till the review petition is decided, the law as declared by the Supreme court whereby the circular dated 22.08.2014 has been set-aside would hold the field. The order further says that in the facts and situation of this case, till the petition is adjudicated on merits, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for the monthly pension which was earlier being paid to him of Rs. 17,874/-, which would be subject to the final adjudication of this writ petition.
Please preserve the order and provide a its copy to the advocates defending pensioners in similar cases.
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
WPS No. 2598 of 2020
N. K. Dubey Versus Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others
09/07/2020
Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Pillai, Counsel for the respondent No. 1.
Mr. P.R. Patankar, Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
Heard
The contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was initially paid pension of an amount of Rs. 2,215/- per month. Subsequently, demands were made for enhanced pension and the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,24,487/-. Consequent upon such deposit by the petitioner, the pension amount payable to the petitioner was revised to Rs. 17,874/- (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, a recovery notice was issued on 04.03.2020 by the respondent No. 2 whereby it has been contended that the petitioner was paid higher pension of Rs. 3,28,265/- and thereafter, on the basis of circular dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P/12) it has been contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get the higher pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said circular, on which the reliance is placed, has been set-aside by the Kerala High Court as well as Delhi High Court and the order was subject of appeal in SLP No. 8658-5659/2019 before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 01.04.2019. It is stated that this fact is also in the knowledge of the respondents which would be evident from Annexure P/11. It is further submitted that while passing the Annexure P/1, the reference has been made of the decision of the case along with the fact that the review petition has been filed which is pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the direction may be issued to the respondent No. 1 for payment of the higher pension which was being paid to the petitioner earlier.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 prays for some time to file reply. He also submits that the petitioner was not an employee of the respondent No. 1 as he is an employee of Dairy Federation i.e. respondent No. 3. He would further submit that the status quo with respect to the payment of pension may be maintained.
Issue notice to the respondent No. 3 on payment of process fee, as per rules
Perused the order of the Kerala High Court as also the reference of the Supreme Court along with the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court reported in AIROnline 2019 Delhi 768, prima facie it appears that the petitioner was directed to deposit a certain amount to get the higher pension and after having deposited Rs. 5,24,487/-, his monthly pension was revised to Rs. 17,874/-. The document prima facie shows that the said pension was being paid to the petitioner and all of a sudden the denial has been effected by an order dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure P/1). Therefore, at the outset it appears that the petitioner being promised to pay certain amount had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,24,487/- which is evident from the letter dated 29.05.2018 and thereafter the benefit of higher pension was being given to him. The circular, prima facie on which the respondent No. 1 has placed reliance has been set-aside by the Kerala High Court as well as Delhi High Court and is also affirmed by the Supreme Court. In view of these factual backgrounds, the status quo as prayed by respondent would lead to starvation of the petitioner and such situation cannot be allowed to prevail as the amount of Rs. 2,215/- would be too meager in view of the price index which is prevailing today in society. The order (Annexure P/1) also appears to have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner though it has a civil consequence.
Taking into the entirety of the fact and the order of the Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court which appears to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court till the review petition is decided, the law as declared by the Supreme court whereby the circular dated 22.08.2014 has been set-aside would hold the field.
In the facts and situation of this case, till the petition is adjudicated on merits, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for the monthly pension which was earlier being paid to him of Rs. 17,874/-, which would be subject to the final adjudication of this writ petition.
List the matter after four weeks.
0 comments:
Post a Comment