As per case facts, petitioners, after retirement, were initially granted lower pensions under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. Following amendments and Supreme Court judgments in R.C. Gupta, they submitted options ... and deposited arrears for higher pensions, which were granted. However, the EPFO later discontinued the higher pension, citing pending litigation. The question arose whether the EPFO's reduction of previously granted higher pension, based on Supreme Court directives and their own circulars, was legal and justified. Finally, the Court held that petitioners are eligible for higher pension as they exercised their option under the pre-amended scheme before retirement, with no cut-off date specified in the original scheme. The EPFO's action of reducing the pension was illegal, and it was directed to restore the higher pension with arrears and interest.