CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

1. CWP-28189-2025 (O&M)

Surinder Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others

....Respondents

Sr

No.

Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

2CWP-10061-2026Dalip Kumar Union of India and others

3CWP-10084-2026Abhiman

Banewal

Union of India and others

4CWP-10165-2026Sohan Singh Union of India and others

5CWP-10198-2025Devi Singh Union of India and others

6CWP-10254-2026Hawa Singh Union of India and others

7CWP-10260-2026Prithvi Raj Union of India and others

8CWP-10308-2026Naresh Dutta Union of India and others

9CWP-10974-2026Baghrawat Mal Union of India and others

10CWP-10975-2026Surjeet Singh Union of India and others

11CWP-10991-2026Dalip Singh Union of India and others

12CWP-10994-2026Jeet Singh Union of India and others

13CWP-11668-2026Ranbir Singh Union of India and others

14CWP-12292-2026Parladh Singh Union of India and others

15CWP-12760-2026Shinder Pal

Singh

Union of India and others

16CWP-12847-2026Rawait Singh

Gabbi

Union of India and others

17CWP-12849-2026Bhagwant Singh

Brar

Union of India and others

18CWP-13094-2026Rakesh Chander Union of India and others

19CWP-13193-2026Inder Pal Singh Union of India and others

20CWP-13240-2026Mohinder KumarUnion of India and others

21CWP-13748-2026Raj Kumar

Sharma

Union of India and others

22CWP-13815-2026Surinder Pal

Singh

Union of India and others

23CWP-14960-2026Subhash ChanderUnion of India and others

24CWP-15980-2026Balwant SinghCentral Provident Fund

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 2

and another Commissioner and others

25CWP-16523-2022Rajesh Kumar

Ghai and others

The Employees Provident

Fund Organization and

others

26CWP-167-2026 Surinder Kumar

and others

Employees Provident

Fund Organization and

others

27CWP-1804-2026Mohan Lal and

others

Union of India and others

28CWP-20543-2025Aseem Kumar

Agarwal

Union of India and others

29CWP-2573-2026Rajesh Kumar Union of India and others

30CWP-2575-2026Megh Raj and

others

Union of India and others

31CWP-2580-2026Satinder Singh

Chattha

Union of India and others

32CWP-303-2025 Raman Kaplish Union of India and others

33CWP-310-2026 Baur Singh Union of India and others

34CWP-3137-2026Karamjit Singh

Sidhu and others

Union of India and others

35CWP-31618-2024Rajesh

Chaudhary

Union of India and others

36CWP-31854-2025Sajjan Kumar Union of India and others

37CWP-31916-2025Shisupal Singh

and others

Union of India and others

38CWP-32519-2025Raghubir Singh Union of India and others

39CWP-32522-2025Sajjan Kumar Union of India and others

40CWP-32935-2025Zora Singh and

others

Union of India and others

41CWP-33105-2024Rajender Singh

Malik and others

The Employees Provident

Fund Organization and

others

42CWP-33143-2025Jagpal Singh Union of India and others

43CWP-33173-2025Balraj Rahej Union of India and others

44CWP-33335-2025Dalbir Singh Union of India and others

45CWP-34409-2024Shiv Kumar Union of India and others

46CWP-34624-2025Ajmer Singh Union of India and others

47CWP-34655-2025Raghbir Singh Union of India and others

48CWP-34973-2025Mahabir Singh Union of India and others

49CWP-3513-2026Hardip Singh Union of India and others

50CWP-35927-2025Tarsem Singh

and others

Union of India and others

51CWP-37188-2025Krishan Kumar Union of India and others

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 3

52CWP-37230-2025Jai Bhagwan and

others

Union of India and others

53CWP-38264-2025Sanjay Dewan The Employees Provident

Fund Organization and

others

54CWP-4125-2026Sanjay Garg and

others

Union of India and others

55CWP-4169-2025Amarjit Singh

Sekhon

Union of India and others

56CWP-4174-2025Jai Bhushan

Chandan

Union of India and others

57CWP-5280-2026Sanjeev Kumar Union of India and others

58CWP-56-2026 Jaila Ram Swan Union of India and others

59CWP-5695-2026Raj Kumar Union of India and others

60CWP-576-2026 Gurskander

Singh and others

Union of India and others

61CWP-6404-2026Mahavir Parshad

and others

Union of India and others

62CWP-6494-2026Sanjiv Kumar

and others

Union of India and others

63CWP-7681-2026Jaswant Singh

and others

Union of India and others

64CWP-7686-2026Makhan Singh Union of India and others

65CWP-8160-2025Neelam Chopra

and another

Union of India and others

66CWP-8612-2024Shree Krishan

Sharma and

others

The Employees Provident

Fund Organisation and

others

67CWP-8943-2026Devinder Kumar Union of India and others

68CWP-8944-2026Gurdip Singh Union of India and others

69CWP-9028-2026Ajay Kumar

Sharma

Union of India and others

70CWP-9099-2025Chander Bosh

Kaushik and

others

The Employees Provident

Fund Organization and

others

71CWP-9129-2026Surinder Singh

Grewal

Union of India and others

72CWP-9182-2026Satish Kumar Union of India and others

73CWP-9585-2026Surjan Singh Union of India and others

74CWP-9633-2026Garib Dass Union of India and others

75CWP-9974-2026Subhash ChanderUnion of India and others

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 4

1.Date(s) when judgment was

reserved

25.03.2026,

07.05.2026,

25.05.2026

2.Date of pronouncement of

judgment

27.05.2026

3.Date of uploading judgment 27.05.2026

4.Whether operative part or full

judgment is pronounced

Full

5.Delay, if any, in pronouncing of

full judgment and reasons thereof

Not Applicable

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:Mr. Ankit Midha, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

in CWP-28189-2025, CWP-310-2026, CWP-56-2026,

CWP-9182-2026, CWP-9129-2026, CWP-8944-2026

CWP-8943-2026, CWP-9585-2026, CWP-9633-2026,

CWP-10165-2026, CWP-10308-2026, CWP-12760-2026,

CWP-12847-2026, CWP-12849-2026, CWP-13094-2026.

Mr. Himanshu Chhabra, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-576-2026.

Dr. Sumati Jund, Advocate with Mr. Rahul Saini, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) in CWP-2573-2026, CWP-2575-2026

and CWP-2580-2026.

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-6404-2026.

Mr. Abhijeet Singh Rawaley, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-4125-2026.

Mr. Mahabir Singh Tanwar, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) in CWP-31854-2025,

CWP-32519-2025, CWP-32522-2025, CWP-33143-2025,

CWP-33173-2025, CWP-33335-2025, CWP-34624-2025,

CWP-34973-2025, CWP-37188 -2025, CWP-5695-2026,

CWP-5280-2026, CWP-14960-2026, CWP-9974-2026,

CWP-10061-2026, CWP-10084-2026, CWP-10254-2026,

CWP-10260-2026, CWP-10974-2026, CWP-10975-2026,

CWP-10991-2026, CWP-10994-2026, CWP-11668-2026,

CWP-12292-2026, CWP-13193-2026, CWP-13240-2026,

CWP-13815-2026 and CWP-13748-2026.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 5

Ms. Pooja Chopra, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Tapish Gupta, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-167-2026.

Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioners in CWP-8612-2024, CWP-33105-2024,

CWP-16523-2022 and CWP-38264-2025.

Mr. Amit Sharma (Kanav), Advocate

with Mr. Deepankur Sharma, Advocate

and Ms. Jaskiran Kaur Bassi, Advocate

for the petitioners in CWP-37230-2025.

Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) in CWP-9099-2025.

Mr. A.S. Walia, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) in CWP-9028-2026, CWP-7681-2026,

CWP-7686-2026, CWP-1804-2026, CWP-3137-2026,

CWP-31916-2025, CWP-32935-2025, CWP-35927-2025.

Mr. Raman Kaplish (petitioner in person)

in CWP-303-2025.

Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-3513-2026.

Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-31618-2024.

Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner in CWP-15980-2026.

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate (petitioner in person)

in CWP-34409-2024.

Mr. Raman Kaplish, Advocate (except in CWP-303-2025)

and Mr. Lovedev Singh, Advocate

for the petitioner(s) in remaining cases.

Mr. H.S. Gill, Advocate for

respondent No.1 in CWP-576-2026.

Mr. Prince Singh, Advocate

with Ms. Navya Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.4

in CWP-31854-2025 and CWP-38264-2025

and for respondent No.5

in CWP-34973-2025 and CWP-31618-2024.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 6

Mr. Deepak Goyat, Advocate for respondent No.5

in CWP-33143-2025, CWP-33173-2025,

CWP-33335-2025

and for respondent No.4 in CWP-10260-2026,

CWP-12292-2026, CWP-13240-2026, CWP-14960-2026

and for respondent No.5 in CWP-9974-2026,

CWP-10061-2026, CWP-10084-2026, CWP-10254-2026,

CWP-10974-2026, CWP-10975-2026, CWP-10991-2026,

CWP-10994-2026, CWP-11668-2026

and CWP-13193-2026.

Ms. Monika Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5

in CWP-7681-2026 and CWP-310-2026

and for respondent No.4 in CWP-1804-2026.

Mr. V.P. Malik, Advocate

for respondent No.6 in CWP-34973-2025.

Mr. Yash Garg, Advocate

with Mr. Shailesh Aggarwal, Advocate

for respondent No.4 in CWP-167-2026 (through V.C.)

Ms. Gehna Vaishnavi, Advocate

for respondent No.4 in CWP-16523-2022.

Ms. Nikita Goel, Advocate

with Ms. Naina Ranot, Advocate

for respondent No.4 in CWP-5695-2026.

Ms. Anjali Singh, Advocate

for Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Advocate

for respondent No.5 in CWP-8612-2024

and for respondent No.3 in CWP-33105-2024.

Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate

for respondent No.4 in CWP-5280-2026.

Mr. Rahul Verma, Advocate

for respondent No.4 in CWP-9129-2026

and CWP-3137-2026

and for respondent No.5 in CWP-12849-2026, CWP-

12847-2026 and CWP-13094-2026.

Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3

in CWP-31854-2025 and CWP-32519-2025

and for respondent/EPFO

in CWP-9585-2026 and CWP-12847-2026

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 7

and for respondents No.2 and 3

in CWP-34409-2024 and CWP-3137-2026.

Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate

for respondents No.2 and 3 in CWP-303-2025,

CWP-4169-2025, CWP-4174-2025, CWP-6494-2026,

CWP-8160-2025, CWP-10198-2025, CWP-20543-2025,

CWP-31618-2024, CWP-32935-2025 and CWP-34655-2025

and for the respondent/EPFO in remaining cases.

Ms. Vaishali Jain, Advocate

for respondent-Housefed in CWP-33335-2025,

CWP-31854-2025, CWP-32519-2025, CWP-32522-2025,

CWP-34624-2025, CWP-37188-2025

and CWP-5695-2026.

Mr. Arun Gosain, Advocate

with Mr. Ramandeep Singh Sandhu,

Advocate for respondent No.5 in CWP-576-2026.

Mr. Himmat Singh, Advocate

and Mr. Bhanu Singh Rohilla, Advocate

for respondent in CWP-6404-2026 and CWP-7686-2026

for respondent No.5/PWRMDC in CWP-12760-2026,

CWP-9585-2026, CWP-10165-2026, CWP-10308-2026,

CWP-13094-2026 and CWP-9633-2026.

Mr. Gaurav Tangri, Advocate

for respondents No.2 and 3

in CWP-34409-2024 and CWP-3137-2026.

Ms. Navyug Geet Brar, Advocate

for respondent No.4 in CWP-10198-2025,

CWP-8160-2025, CWP-4169-2025, CWP-4174-2025 and

CWP-20543-2025.

Mr. G.S. Khokhar, Advocate

for respondent No.4

in CWP-32935-2025 and CWP-31916-2025.

Ms. Hanima Grewal, Advocate

for respondent No.4 in CWP-34409-2024.

Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate

for respondent No.4 in CWP-303-2025 (through V.C.)

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 8

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. With the consent of all the parties, the aforementioned writ

petitions are taken up together and are being decided by this common

judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from

CWP-28189-2025.

PRAYER

2. The writ petition (CWP-28189-2025) has been filed under

Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following

reliefs:

a. Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the

Circular dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) regarding

computation of pension on pro-rata basis for pensioners

whose pension is calculated on higher wages as well as the

instructions issued vide e-mail dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure

P-7) outlining the method for calculating pensions on

higher wages.

b. Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing

Conditions No.6 and 7 of the Joint Declaration Form

prescribed by the respondents as a pre-condition for

exercising joint option under Para 11(4) of the Employees

Pension Scheme, 1995, being ultra vires the scheme and

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Employees

Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. 2022(4)

SCT 674.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 9

c. Issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the

respondents to:

i. Calculate pension of the petitioner on the basis of

Para 11(4) read with Para 12 of Employees' Pension

Scheme, 1995, on actual wages without pro-rata

reduction and to pay all consequential arrears;

ii. Pay interest at least at the rate of 8% p.a. on all

arrears of pension from the date of retirement till

actual realization, as well as for the specific period of

delay in issuance of the revised Pension Payment

Order (PPO);

iii. Recalculate the arrears of pension by ensuring parity

between the wages on which additional contribution

was collected and the wages reckoned for pension

fixation, along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.;

and

iv.Refund the excess interest collected from the

petitioner on the contribution on salary exceeding the

wage ceiling.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER(S)

● The application of pro-rata formula in ‘Higher Wages’ cases

is illegal and arbitrary

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) inter alia contended

that on 04.03.1952, the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 10

Provisions Act, 1952 was enacted and brought into force for the

institution of provident funds, pension fund and deposit-linked

insurance fund for employees in factories and other establishments.

Subsequently, on 16.11.1995, under Section 6A of the aforesaid Act, the

Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1995

Pension Scheme’) was notified so as to provide for monthly pensions

payable post retirement. The purpose behind setting up the said scheme

was to create a pension fund whereby employees could receive pension

as a social security measure meant to assist them in their old age.

3.1 It was submitted that the petitioner joined service of Punjab

Water Resources Management and Development Corporation Limited,

as a Clerk on 09.10.1980 and was promoted as Senior Assistant on

04.06.1985 and further as Divisional Accounts Officer on 21.09.2001.

The petitioner retired from the service of the Corporation on 31.08.2019

(Annexure P-1).

3.2 Learned counsel argued that the petitioner was a member of

the 1995 Pension Scheme since its inception. The Scheme provides for

grant of pension to employees/members who superannuate after

attaining the age of 58 years and upon completion of 10 years of

service. The formula for computation of the quantum thereof is also

provided in Paragraph 12 of the 1995 Pension Scheme. Furthermore,

Paragraph 11 of the Scheme deals with the determination of

‘Pensionable Salary’. At that point of time, maximum pensionable

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 11

salary was 5,000/- and this sum was subsequently enhanced to

₹

6,500/- and further, vide notification dated 22.08.2014, to 15,000/-.

₹ ₹

3.3 It was contended that w.e.f. 16.03.1996, a proviso was

inserted in Paragraph 11(3) of the Scheme, enabling both the employer

and the employee to exercise an option for contribution on salary

exceeding the prescribed ceiling of 6,500/- (which was 5,000/- per

₹ ₹

month prior to 08.10.2001 and 15,000/- per month with effect from

₹

01.09.2014), so as to retain entitlement to pension under the Scheme. In

this regard, it was provided that 8.33% of the employer’s contribution,

calculated on the employee’s salary (being the deductible amount

towards the Provident Fund), was required to be remitted to the Pension

Fund. As noted above, the Scheme was further modified vide

notification dated 22.08.2014, w.e.f. 01.09.2014.

3.4 Learned counsel submitted that, in terms of Paragraph

11(4) of the 1995 Pension Scheme, members who were in service as on

01.09.2014 and who, at the option of both the employer and the

employee, had been contributing on salary exceeding 6,500/- per

₹

month, are entitled to exercise a fresh joint option to continue

contributing on salary exceeding 15,000/- per month. It was further

₹

submitted that, in such cases, the pensionable salary of these members is

required to be determined on the basis of their actual higher salary. The

petitioner duly exercised the aforesaid Joint Option under Paragraph

11(4) on 11.03.2023 (Annexure P-2).

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 12

3.5 Accordingly, the pension of the petitioner under the 1995

Pension Scheme was sanctioned by the respondents as Rs.24,511/- per

month with effect from 12.08.2019 vide letter dated 23.12.2024

(Annexure P-4). However, the name of the petitioner was wrongly

written on the Pension Payment Order (PPO) as ‘Surinder Singh’

instead of ‘Surinder Kumar.’ The PPO, as such, was revised vide letter

dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-5).

3.6 Learned counsel vehemently contended that the

respondents have wrongly and illegally applied a pro-rata formula

while computing the pension of the petitioner, despite the undisputed

position that petitioner’s case squarely falls under Paragraph 11(4) of

the 1995 Pension Scheme. Further, the petitioner retired from service on

31.08.2019 and thus, the entire period of 60 months, relevant for

determining the pensionable salary under Paragraph 11(4) falls

subsequent to the said amendment dated 01.09.2014. In the said period,

the contribution of the petitioner continued to be deducted from his

actual salary. It was further argued that the petitioner had never opted

for or availed the wage ceiling limits under Paragraph 3 or Paragraph

11(3) of the 1995 Pension Scheme, and therefore, the application of a

pro-rata formula is wholly unjustified and contrary to the Scheme.

3.7 Learned counsel argued that at the stage of determination

of pensionable salary, the respondents have unlawfully applied a pro-

rata bifurcation (pre/post 01.09.2014) by importing conditions

applicable under Paragraph 11(1) of the 1995 Pension Scheme. As a

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 13

consequence, the petitioner’s pension has been artificially reduced

despite having made contributions on a higher salary. It was submitted

that Paragraph 11(1) of the Scheme governs the determination of

pensionable salary for wage-ceiling contributors and provides for

calculation on the basis of the average monthly pay of the last 60

months, subject to a pro-rata application of the ceiling limits of

6,500/- up to 01.09.2014 and 15,000/- thereafter. In contrast,

₹ ₹

Paragraph 11(4) specifically deals with cases where both the employer

and employee have opted to contribute on salary exceeding the

prescribed ceiling, and clearly stipulates that, upon exercise of such

option, the pensionable salary shall be based on the actual higher salary.

Significantly, Paragraph 11(4) contains no reference to any pro-rata

computation or wage-ceiling bifurcation. It was further contended that

Paragraph 12(2) of the Scheme prescribes the formula for determining

the monthly pension, and its proviso refers to pro-rata pensionable

service only in the context of wage-ceiling cases ( 6,500/- or

₹

15,000/-). Thus, the concept of

₹

pro-rata calculation is confined to

Paragraph 11(1) and the proviso to Paragraph 12(2), and finds no

application to cases falling under Paragraph 11(4).

3.8 Learned counsel submitted that the respondents issued

Circular No. Pension/SC/Higher Pension/2022/1357 dated 01.06.2023

(Annexure P-6), laying down the methodology for computation of

pension in “higher wages” cases. The circular bifurcates the method into

two parts, of which the second part pertains to cases found eligible for

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 14

pension on higher wages where the date of commencement of pension is

post 01.09.2014. It was contended that the petitioner’s case squarely

falls within this category. It was argued that the said methodology is in

consonance with Paragraph 11 of the 1995 Pension Scheme, as

amended. The circular clearly provides that, for such cases, the average

salary of the last 60 months is to be taken into account for the purpose

of computation of pension, and the pensionable service is to be

reckoned as a single continuous period from 16.11.1995 till the date of

retirement.

3.9 Thereafter, on 14.02.2024, the respondents circulated an

internal e-mail (Annexure P-7) to all Regional Offices of the

Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation across the country, setting out

a methodology for computation of pension on higher wages, along with

illustrative examples. The said e-mail, marked “for Internal Circulation

only,” is wholly inconsistent with and contrary to the provisions of the

earlier circular dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure P-6).

3.10 Furthermore, the aforesaid e-mail dated 14.02.2024

(Annexure P-7) introduces a method of calculating pensionable salary in

higher-wage cases by bifurcating the service period into pre-01.09.2014

and post-01.09.2014 segments and by adopting concepts such as

“highest monthly salary” for each period, which is wholly alien to the

Scheme. It was further argued that the 1995 Pension Scheme clearly

defines “pensionable salary” as the average monthly pay drawn during

the contributory period of service in the 60 months immediately

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 15

preceding the date of exit. While the pensionable salary is to be

determined on a pro-rata basis in terms of Paragraph 11(1) for cases

governed by the wage ceiling, as far as cases involving higher wages are

concerned, Paragraph 11(4) mandates that the pensionable salary be

computed on the basis of the actual higher salary. Accordingly, the

methodology introduced through the e-mail is inconsistent with the

statutory scheme and impermissible in law.

3.11 Subsequently, the respondents issued another circular dated

18.01.2025 (Annexure P-8), providing clarifications on various policy

issues relating to the processing of pension in higher-wages cases. The

relevant extract of the said circular is reproduced hereunder:

“Certain policy issues were raised by the field offices

related to processing of pension on higher wages cases.

These issues were subsequently taken up with the Ministry

of Labour & Employment (MoL&E) for consideration and

approval.

2. The following clarifications are issued that have the

approval of the Hon'ble Minister of Labour &

Employment:

Issue Clarification/Approval

Pension Computation

on pro-rata basis.

The pro-rata calculation of

pension is provided in Para 12 of

the EPS and is equitable, treating

both categories of pensioners i.e.

pensioners under wage ceiling

and those with higher wages on

equal footing. Further, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court had also

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 16

not found the same ultra vires.

Accordingly, MoL&E has agreed

with the computation of pension

on pro-rata basis for the pension

on Higher Wages cases.”

(Emphasis added)

3.12 Learned counsel submitted that, by way of the aforesaid

clarification, the respondents are seeking to impermissibly redefine the

concept of pro-rata computation. It was contended that pension on

higher wages and pension under wage-ceiling cases are fundamentally

distinct categories, which are treated separately under the 1995 Pension

Scheme. The application of a pro-rata formula is envisaged only where

wages vary across different periods, and not in cases governed by

higher-wage contributions. It was further argued that the assertion in the

circular dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-8), to the effect that the Hon’ble

Supreme Court did not find the treatment of both categories of

pensioners on an equal footing to be ultra vires, is misconceived. In

fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not adjudicate on the methodology

of pension computation, and the issue was neither raised nor decided in

Sunil Kumar B. (supra). The stand taken by the respondents is thus

erroneous, arbitrary, and contrary to the law declared by the Hon’ble

Apex Court.

3.13 Learned counsel also submitted that the pro-rata method

for computation of pension in higher-wage cases was not even in

existence when the matter in Sunil Kumar B. (supra) was under

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 17

consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, did not

form part of the controversy. It was pointed out that higher pensions had

been disbursed without applying any pro-rata reduction for nearly 09

years following the amendment in September 2014. The subsequent

reduction of pension by applying pro-rata norms has, in fact, been

stayed by various High Courts. In this regard, reliance was placed on the

order dated 05.02.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 4717 of 2025 titled as ‘S.

Kalyanakrishnan vs. Union of India’ by the High Court of Kerala

(Annexure P-9), wherein it was directed that the higher pension being

received by the petitioners shall not be curtailed without further orders

of the Court.

3.14 It was argued that the norms governing the computation of

pension on higher wages cannot be introduced or altered by way of an

executive circular, particularly when such methodology finds no place

in the 1995 Pension Scheme. It is submitted that any modification to the

Scheme must be effected in accordance with law i.e. through statutory

amendment. It was further contended that the reference in the circular

dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) to the approval of the Ministry of

Labour for the implementation of the pro-rata method in higher-wage

cases is also misconceived and appears to be an attempt to create

confusion, as no such approval can override or substitute the statutory

scheme.

3.15 Additionally, it was contended that the said clarification,

being in the nature of an executive instruction, cannot override or

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 18

amend the statutory provisions of the 1995 Pension Scheme framed

under Section 6A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952. Any amendment to the Scheme can only be

effected by the Central Government through a notification published in

the Official Gazette. Administrative circulars or clarifications, therefore,

cannot introduce new conditions, such as the application of a pro-rata

formula in higher-wage cases, which are not contemplated under the

Scheme.

3.16 Learned counsel emphatically contended that the

employees who had exercised the higher-wage option and made

additional contributions had a legitimate expectation that their pension

would be computed on such higher wages, based on their average salary

from the last 60 months preceding retirement. The impugned

clarification/e-mail (Annexure P-7), it is submitted, defeats this

expectation and operates retrospectively to the detriment of the

pensioners, including the petitioner. It was further argued that the 1995

Pension Scheme is a beneficial legislation and, thus, must receive a

liberal construction so as to advance the interest of pensioners and not

curtail them. The impugned clarification (Annexure P-8), however,

seeks to restrict pensionary entitlements, thereby frustrating the very

object of the 1995 Pension Scheme.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 19

● The petitioner(s) are entitled to interest on delayed payment

of arrears of pension

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this

Court to Conditions No.6 and 7 of the Joint Option Form under

Paragraph 11(4) of the 1995 Pension Scheme, which are reproduced as

under:

“6. I hereby agree to pay due contribution in a single

tranche as specified by EPFO, along with interest at rates

declared under Para 60 of EPF Scheme, 1952 or at the

rate declared by the concerned Trust of such establishment,

from time to time, whichever is higher, if any.

7. I hereby jointly opt along with my employer to pay full

amount 'of contribution on salary exceeding wage ceiling

under erstwhile Para 11(3) (since deleted) and Para 11(4)

of EPS, 1995 alongwith interest upto the last date of the

month in which payment is made, in accordance with the

judgment dated 04.11.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

through my last employer within such period as may be

directed by EPFO after verification of my joint option. If

the full amount payable is not deposited by my last

employer within such period as may be directed by EPFO

after verification of my joint option, this joint option shall

be liable to be treated as null and void.”

4.1 In this regard, it was contended that Paragraph 11(4) of the

1995 Pension Scheme merely requires the exercise of a joint option by

the employer and the employee, and does not empower the respondent–

EPFO to impose additional conditions, such as the levy of interest with

retrospective effect. It was argued that, by introducing such stipulations,

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 20

the respondent–EPFO has effectively sought to legislate through

administrative instructions, which is impermissible in law. Reliance was

placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar

B. (supra), wherein the EPFO was directed to afford an opportunity to

eligible employees to exercise a joint option. It was submitted that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court did not authorise the imposition of onerous

conditions, such as the recovery of interest retrospectively. The

impugned stipulation, therefore, travels beyond the mandate of the said

judgment.

4.2 It was further contended that the petitioner has been

compelled to accept arbitrary conditions, lacking the force of law,

including the payment of interest from a past date. It is a settled

principle of law that there can be no estoppel against statute, and thus,

any declaration obtained under compulsion for availing a statutory

benefit cannot operate as a valid waiver of statutory rights.

4.3 Learned counsel submitted that the arrears of pension,

representing the difference between the pension payable on higher

wages and the pension initially sanctioned to the petitioner upon

retirement, became due immediately after his retirement. However, an

amount of 13,33,882/- was released to the petitioner only in January

₹

2025. It was contended that, as per settled law, pensionary benefits are

required to be disbursed within a reasonable period, ordinarily within

one month from the date of retirement, whereas, in the present case, the

payment has been made after an inordinate delay of more than 05 years

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 21

and 03 months. It was further argued that, while the respondents have

recovered the differential contribution along with interest, the arrears of

pension have been paid to the petitioner after a substantial delay without

any corresponding interest, which is arbitrary and inequitable. The

petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension

arrears and denial thereof is illegal and contrary to the constitutional

principle of fairness.

4.4 It was contended that the respondents, vide

circular/clarification dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-8), have clarified

that interest on EPF dues arising on account of wage arrears payable

retrospectively may be recovered up to the date of retirement or

cessation of membership under the 1995 Pension Scheme, whichever is

earlier. The relevant extract of the said circular/clarification dated

18.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) is reproduced hereunder:

Issue Clarification/Approval

Reckoning wage

arrears that are

payable

retrospectively

The revision of wages with retrospective effect

were not deliberate or wilful default on part of

the employers. Therefore, such wages should

be accounted for against the respective months

for which the arrears were meant. In such

cases, it would not be appropriate to recover

damages under section 14-B. However, the

interest on such dues (either from EPF

Contribution or through Demand Letters)

may be recovered up to the date of

retirement/cessation of membership of EPS-

95, whichever is earlier.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 22

It may be reiterated that no damages may be

imposed in such cases.”

(Emphasis added)

4.5 Learned counsel argued that a perusal of the aforesaid

clarification makes it evident that, in cases where the delay is not

attributable to any deliberate default on the part of the employer, interest

on EPF dues is recoverable only up to the date of retirement or cessation

of membership under the 1995 Pension Scheme, whichever is earlier. In

the present case, the petitioner retired on 31.08.2019. However, the

respondents have recovered interest on the differential contribution

towards higher pension up to the date of actual payment. It was

submitted that the demand was raised vide letter dated 24.06.2024, and

the petitioner deposited the amount on 25.06.2024 along with interest

calculated up to the date of payment. Consequently, an additional sum

of 6,22,297/- has been recovered from the petitioner towards interest

₹

beyond the date of retirement. Such recovery is stated to be erroneous,

illegal, and contrary to the respondents’ own clarification dated

18.01.2025 (Annexure P-8). Accordingly, it is contended that the excess

amount of interest so recovered is liable to be refunded to the petitioner,

along with interest.

4.6 Moreover, learned counsel emphasised that upon

deposit/transfer of the differential contribution towards higher pension,

the respondents were required to issue the revised Pension Payment

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 23

Order (PPO) within 15 days. In the present case, the demand was raised

by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 24.06.2024, and the petitioner

deposited the requisite amount on 25.06.2024 (Annexure P-10).

Accordingly, the revised PPO ought to have been issued on or before

10.07.2024. However, the same was issued only on 23.12.2024,

resulting in an inordinate delay of approximately five and a half months.

It was further pointed out that, vide e-mail dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure

P-14), the respondents themselves had directed all concerned officers

that, wherever demand letters had been issued and due amounts had

been deposited by pensioners, the revised PPO must be issued within 15

days from the date of such deposit. It was contended that while the

respondents have recovered the differential contribution along with

interest, the petitioner has not been compensated for the delay in

issuance of the revised PPO. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to

interest on 13,33,882/- i.e. the arrears of pension, for the period of

₹

delay.

● There is a disparity between wages considered for

contribution and wages adopted for pension computation

5. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the

wage details (calculation sheet) obtained from respondent No. 3 under

the Right to Information Act, annexed as Annexure P-10. It was

contended that, while calculating the amount payable by the petitioner

towards differential contribution, the respondents adopted higher wages,

including arrears of Dearness Allowance and pay revisions, however,

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 24

for the purpose of determining pensionable salary, the respondents have

taken a lower wage figure, thereby creating a clear inconsistency.

5.1 Learned counsel submitted that the total salary drawn by

the petitioner during the last 60 months preceding retirement was

49,91,902/-, whereas the respondents have reckoned the same as

₹

48,99,902/-. The discrepancy arises from the failure of the respondents

₹

to apportion arrears of D.A. and pay revision benefits to the respective

months to which they pertain. While such arrears were considered for

computing the differential contribution, they have been excluded from

the calculation of pensionable salary.

5.2 It was further submitted that, upon correctly apportioning

the arrears to the relevant months, the petitioner has recalculated the

pension payable under both methods, i.e., with and without applying the

pro-rata formula. The monthly pension, if computed without applying

the pro-rata principle, works out to 28,212/-, whereas under the

₹

pro-

rata method, it comes to 24,623/-. In contrast, the pension sanctioned

₹

under PPO No.3122 (Annexure P-4) is 24,511/- per month.

₹

Accordingly, a shortfall of 3,701/- per month is payable to the

₹

petitioner, along with interest. The relevant calculation sheets and

details of wages, including apportioned arrears, are annexed as

Annexure P-11.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, at the

outset, submitted that the petitioner had never exercised any joint option

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 25

under the erstwhile Paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Pension Scheme before

the cut-off date of 01.09.2014. It was only by virtue of the indulgence

granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. (supra)

while exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of

India, that the petitioner was given a belated opportunity to submit a

joint option. The petitioner availed of this benefit, submitted the joint

option along with the requisite undertaking to pay the differential

contribution with interest, and only thereafter was granted higher

pension. Having accepted the conditions and reaped the benefits, the

petitioner is now estopped from challenging the very same conditions,

including the pro-rata fixation of pension and Conditions No.6 and 7 of

the Joint Declaration Form.

● The methodology of pro-rata computation flows directly from

the statutory scheme and has been upheld by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the

Central Government, vide notifications dated 22.08.2014 (Annexures

R/1 and R/2), amended the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952

and the 1995 Pension Scheme, respectively, with effect from

01.09.2014 and the statutory wage ceiling was enhanced from 6,500/-

₹

to 15,000/- per month. Consequently, the proviso to Paragraph 11(3) of

₹

the 1995 Pension Scheme was deleted and a new Paragraph 11(4) was

inserted specifically for those employees who were already contributing

on higher wages. Additionally, a new proviso was added to Paragraph

12(2) of the 1995 Pension Scheme mandating that monthly pension

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 26

shall be determined on a pro-rata basis for pensionable service up to

01.09.2014 at the maximum pensionable salary of 6,500/- per month

₹

and for the period thereafter at 15,000/- per month.

₹

7.1 Learned counsel highlighted the specific language of

Paragraph 11 and 12 of the 1995 Pension Scheme and contended that

the petitioner has misconstrued the applicable pension formula.

According to learned counsel, the petitioner seeks computation of

pension at a flat rate by taking the average salary of the last 60 months

preceding retirement, without applying the pro-rata principle for the

periods before and after 01.09.2014. It was contended that, under the

amended provisions, the pension is required to be computed by dividing

the service into three distinct segments: (i) service up to 16.11.1995,

i.e., prior to the introduction of the 1995 Pension Scheme; (ii) service

from 16.11.1995 to 01.09.2014; and (iii) service from 01.09.2014 up to

the date of retirement. Accordingly, the benefit of past service is first

determined for the period up to 16.11.1995, followed by computation of

pension for the period from 16.11.1995 to 01.09.2014, and thereafter for

the period from 01.09.2014 till retirement. It was thus argued that the

pension is to be calculated on a pro-rata basis in accordance with the

Scheme, and not on a flat-rate method as suggested by the petitioner.

7.2 Learned counsel further relied heavily on the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. (supra) and submitted

that the very same amendments to Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the 1995

Pension Scheme were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 27

and in Paragraph 36 of the judgment, the Court unequivocally upheld

the change in methodology for computation of pensionable salary.

Paragraph 44(i) and (viii) of the said judgment expressly declare that the

provisions contained in Notification dated 22.08.2014 (Annexures R/1

and R/2) are legal and valid, and that no flaw was found in altering the

basis for computation of pensionable salary. Therefore, the pro-rata

formula stands judicially affirmed and cannot be re-agitated in these

proceedings.

7.3 It was further submitted that, on this very issue, various

Regional Offices had sought clarification from the Head Office

regarding the manner in which higher pension in post-2014 retirement

cases was to be fixed and the method for computation on a pro rata

basis. In response, the Head Office, vide e-mail dated 14.02.2024

(Annexure R/4), clarified that the same pro-rata formula is to be applied

even in higher pension cases and also provided an illustrative example

for guidance. The position was subsequently reiterated by the Head

Office through Circular dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure R/5).

● The claim of petitioner for refund of interest charged for

grant of Higher Pension and also to pay the interest on arrears

of higher pension is not legally tenable

8. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner became

entitled to higher pension only after the judgment in Sunil Kumar B.

(supra) allowed him to submit the joint option. Prior to that, the

petitioner had no vested right to a higher pension. Learned counsel

argued that the petitioner made contributions to the Pension Fund on the

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 28

basis of the wage-ceiling before exercising the said joint option; as such,

the amount which ought to have been contributed on the basis of the

petitioner’s actual salary from 16.11.1995 till the date of

superannuation- 31.08.2019, was never so deposited. The contribution

made by the petitioner, in fact, on the wage-ceiling, remained in his

Provident Fund account, where it continued to earn interest until its

withdrawal upon retirement. Consequently, the Pension Fund was

deprived of the interest that would have accrued on the contributions

corresponding to the actual salary of the petitioner, while the petitioner

derived the benefit of interest on the same amount in his Provident Fund

account.

8.1 It was submitted that, in order to neutralise this imbalance,

the petitioner was required to deposit the differential contribution along

with applicable interest, which merely represented the interest

component already earned by him on the said amount while the same

remained in the Provident Fund. It was emphasised that the petitioner

has not paid any additional interest from his own funds, but has only

refunded what he had earlier received as interest. In these

circumstances, it was contended that the petitioner’s claim for interest

on delayed payment of pension arrears is wholly untenable. Having

already enjoyed the benefit of interest on the same corpus during its

retention in the Provident Fund, the petitioner cannot claim a second

round of interest upon its conversion into pension. Granting such a

claim would amount to conferring multiple interest benefits on the same

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 29

amount, which is neither equitable nor permissible under the statutory

scheme.

8.2 Moreover, the petitioner submitted the joint option only in

the year 2023, and thereafter, the respondents processed his case.

Therefore, there is no delay attributable to the respondents in releasing

the arrears of pension.

8.3 In response to the petitioner’s claim regarding disparity

between wages considered for contribution and wages adopted for

pension computation, learned counsel submitted that the wage details

were taken on the basis of the member ledger, which reflects month-

wise details as deposited by the employer. No bifurcation or details of

arrear payment or abnormal increase in wages in any particular month

was provided by the employer to the EPFO. Therefore, it was submitted

that the respondents have correctly calculated the pensionable salary

from the member ledger based on the increasing order of wages.

● The pro-rata formula is actuarially sound and prevents

inequitable cross-subsidization

9. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that

the department’s position is founded on sound actuarial principles and

considerations of equity. It was contended that, in cases of pension on

higher wages, the total pension payout over the lifetime of a beneficiary

substantially exceeds the actual contribution made by the individual

member, even after accounting for transfers from the Provident Fund

along with accrued interest. If pension were to be computed entirely on

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 30

higher wages without any pro-rata adjustment, the Pension Fund, which

is primarily structured on contributions up to the statutory wage ceiling,

would be subjected to a disproportionate financial burden. Such an

approach, it was argued, would lead to impermissible cross-

subsidisation, effectively shifting the financial liability of higher-wage

beneficiaries onto ordinary members contributing within the prescribed

ceiling. Learned counsel submitted that the pro-rata principle is

inherent in the framework of the 1995 Pension Scheme, and does not

require any separate or additional authorisation. Neither the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. (supra) nor the amended provisions

of the 1995 Pension Scheme mandate a uniform recalculation of the

entire pensionable service on higher wages.

10. It was further contended that Courts ought not to direct

pension computation in a manner that disrupts the actuarial balance of a

statutory pension scheme, particularly where the Scheme itself

prescribes a specific methodology. The application of the pro-rata

principle in higher-wage cases, therefore, is not a curtailment of benefits

but a necessary safeguard to preserve the financial sustainability of the

Pension Fund. Any deviation therefrom would result in inequitable

enrichment of a limited class of beneficiaries at the expense of the

broader body of members contributing within the statutory framework.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 31

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the record of the case with their able assistance, the following

questions arise for adjudication:

1. Whether the application of the pro-rata formula for

computation of pensionable salary in ‘Higher Wages’ cases

is legally valid?

2. Whether the petitioner(s) are entitled to interest on

delayed payment of arrears of pension?

3. Whether there exists any disparity between the wages

considered for contribution and the wages adopted for

pensionable salary, entitling the petitioner(s) to

recalculation of their pension?

ISSUE 1: The application of the pro-rata formula for computation

of pension in ‘Higher Wages’ cases

12. At the outset, this Court considers it appropriate to advert

to the genesis and statutory object underlying the introduction of the

pro-rata method for the computation of “pensionable salary.” The said

method, incorporated through the 2014 amendment to the 1995 Pension

Scheme, was intended to address a specific regulatory transition,

namely, the enhancement of the statutory wage ceiling from 6,500/- to

₹

15,000/-. In cases where a member’s contributions were confined to

₹

these statutory ceilings, the pro-rata principle serves an actuarial

function by ensuring that the pension payable for a particular segment

of service bears a rational nexus to the quantum of contributions made

during that period.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 32

13. Paragraph 11(1) of the 1995 Pension Scheme explicitly

mandates the pro-rata computation for ‘wage-capped’ members,

directing that the pensionable salary be determined separately for

service up to September 1, 2014 (capped at 6,500) and for service

₹

thereafter (capped at 15,000). The logic is anchored in the principle of

₹

‘quid pro quo’: since the employee/member and employer only remitted

contributions on the lower ceiling for the pre-2014 period, the member

cannot legitimately expect a pension payout based on a higher figure for

that segment. In this narrow context, pro-rata computation prevents an

un-funded ‘windfall’ and preserves the actuarial balance of the pooled

fund.

14. It is settled law that beneficial statutes must receive a

liberal construction. In fact, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, 1983(1) SCC 305 has

clarified that the Courts may not interpret provisions regarding pension

or a statute introducing a pension scheme in a manner that renders them

inane. The relevant part thereof is reproduced hereunder:

“28. Pensions to civil employees of the Government and the

defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a

compensation for service rendered in the past. However, as

held in Dodge v. Board of Education, (1937) 302 US 74 :

82 Law Ed 57 a pension is closely akin to wages in that it

consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in

consideration of past service and serves the purpose of

helping the recipient meet the expenses of living. This

appears to be the nearest to our approach to pension with

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 33

the added qualification that it should ordinarily ensure

freedom from undeserved want.

29. Summing-up it can be said with confidence that

pension is not only compensation for loyal service

rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader

significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic

justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life

when physical and mental prowess is ebbing

corresponding to ageing process and therefore, one is

required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind

is when you gave your best in the he day of life to your

employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way

of periodical payment is assured. The term has been

judicially defined as a stated allowances or stipend made

in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or

emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension

payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering

long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be

a deferred portion of the compensation for service

rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most

practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to

provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid

unemployment but not senility and penury if there is

nothing to fall back upon.

30. The discernible, purpose thus underlying pension

scheme or a statute introducing the pension scheme must

inform interpretative process and accordingly it should

receive a liberal construction and the Courts may not so

interpret such statute as to render them inane (see

American Jurisprudence 2d. 881).”

(Emphasis added)

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 34

15. Against this backdrop, this Court proceeds to examine the

relevant provisions of the 1995 Pension Scheme. Paragraph 11 and 12

of the Scheme, as they presently stand, are reproduced hereunder for

ready reference:

“11. Determination of Pensionable Salary. - (1) The

pensionable salary shall be the average monthly pay

drawn in any manner including on piece rate basis

during contributory period of service in the span of sixty

months preceding the date of exit from the membership of

the Pension Fund and the pensionable salary shall be

determined on pro-rata basis for the pensionable service

up to the 1

st

day of September, 2014, subject to a

maximum of six thousand and five hundred rupees per

month, and for the period thereafter at the maximum of

fifteen thousand rupees per month:

Provided that if a member was not in receipt of full pay

during the period of sixty months preceding the day, he

ceased to be the member of the Pension Fund, the average

of previous sixty months full pay drawn by him during the

period for which contribution to the pension fund was

recovered, shall be considered as pensionable salary for

calculating pension.

(2) If during the said span of 60 months there are non-

contributory periods of service including cases where the

member has drawn salary for a part of the month, the total

wages during the 60 months span shall be divided by the

actual number of days for which salary has been drawn

and the amount so derived shall be multiplied by 30 to

work out the average monthly pay.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 35

(3) The maximum pensionable salary shall be limited to

fifteen thousand rupees per month.

(4) The existing members as on the 1st day of September,

2014, who at the option of the employer and employee,

had been contributing on salary exceeding six thousand

and five hundred rupees per month, may on a fresh

option to be exercised jointly by the employer and

employee continue to contribute on salary exceeding

fifteen thousand rupees per month and the pensionable

salary for the existing members who prefer such fresh

option shall be based on the higher salary:

Provided that the aforesaid members have to contribute at

the rate of 1.16 per cent. [***] on salary exceeding fifteen

thousand rupees as an additional contribution from and

out of the contributions payable by the employees for each

month under the provisions of the Act or the rules made

thereunder:

Provided further that the fresh option shall be exercised by

the member within a period of six months from the 1st day

of September, 2014:

Provided also that the period specified in the second

proviso may, on sufficient cause being shown by the

member, be extended by the Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner for a further period not exceeding six

months:

Provided also if no option is exercised by the member

within such period (including the extended period), it shall

be deemed that the member has not opted for contribution

over wage ceiling and the contributions to the Pension

Fund made over the wage ceiling in respect of the member

shall be diverted to the Provident Fund account of the

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 36

member along with interest as declared under the

Employees' Provident Funds Scheme from time to time.

12. Monthly Member's Pension. - (1) A member shall be

entitled to: -

(a) superannuation pension if he has rendered eligible

service of 10 years or more and retires on attaining the age

of 58 years;

(b) early pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 10

years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the

employment before attaining the age of 58 years.

(2) In the case of a new entrant, the amount of monthly

superannuation pension or early pension, as the case may

be, shall be computed in accordance with the following

factors, namely: -

Monthly member's pension =

Pensionable salary x Pensionable service

70

Provided that the members' monthly pension shall be

determined on a pro-rata basis for the pensionable service

up to the 1st day of September, 2014 at the maximum

pensionable salary of six thousand and five hundred

rupees per month and for the period thereafter at the

maximum pensionable salary of fifteen thousand rupees

per month…”

(Emphasis added)

16. Paragraph 11(1) governs the computation of pensionable

salary in cases where contributions are restricted to the statutory wage

ceiling. It provides that pensionable salary shall be determined on the

basis of the average monthly salary drawn during the last sixty months,

with the wage ceiling of 6,500/- being applicable up to 01.09.2014 and

₹

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 37

15,000/- thereafter on a pro-rata basis. Paragraph 11(4), however,

₹

operates in a distinct field. It specifically applies to cases where both the

employer and employee have exercised the option to contribute on

wages exceeding the prescribed ceiling. In such circumstances, the

Scheme expressly provides that pensionable salary shall be computed

on the basis of the actual higher salary. Significantly, this provision

contains no stipulation regarding pro-rata computation or bifurcation

based on wage ceilings.

17. Likewise, Paragraph 12(2), which prescribes the formula

for calculation of monthly pension, refers to pro-rata pensionable

service only through its proviso and only in the context of wage-ceiling

cases. Thus, the statutory framework indicates that the concept of pro-

rata computation is confined to cases governed by Paragraph 11(1) and

the proviso to Paragraph 12(2), and does not extend to cases falling

under Paragraph 11(4). This Court is of the considered view that a

fundamental distinction must be drawn between members governed by

Paragraph 11(1) and those governed by Paragraph 11(4). The latter

category represents a distinct class of ‘Higher Wage’ contributors who

have historically remitted, or have retrospectively remitted (with

interest), contributions on their actual salaries without regard to the

statutory wage ceilings.

18. Significantly, the respondents themselves issued a circular

dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure P-6), prescribing the methodology for

computation of pension in “Higher Wages” cases. The circular classifies

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 38

such cases into two categories, the second category pertaining to

members whose pension commenced after 01.09.2014 and who were

found eligible for pension on higher wages. The circular specifically

provides that, in such cases, the pensionable salary is to be determined

on the basis of the average monthly pay drawn during the contributory

period of service falling within the 60 months preceding the date of exit

from membership of the Pension Fund. Notably, the circular contains no

reference whatsoever to the application of any pro-rata methodology.

The relevant portion of the circular dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure P-6) is

reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

“Please refer to the Circular No.

Pension/SupremeCourtjudgement/POHW/2022/143 dated

09.05.2023 regarding "Deposit / Transfer of due

contribution with interest into Pension Fund" wherein It

was informed in Para 14 that the method of computation

of Pension will follow through subsequent circular.

2. In this regard, the matter of method of computation of

Pension has been considered and it is informed that, as

for now, the computation of pension shall be in

accordance with the provisions of Employees' Pension

Scheme (EPS), 1995 as follows: -

i. Cases found eligible for pension on higher wages

where date of commencement of pension is prior to

01.09.2014: Pension shall be calculated based on

average monthly pay drawn during contributory

period of service In the span of 12 months preceding

the date of exit from the membership of the pension

fund.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 39

ii. Cases found eligible for pension on higher wages

where date of commencement of pension is post

01.09.2014: Pension shall be calculated based on

average monthly pay drawn during contributory

period of service in the span of 60 months

preceding the date of exit from the membership of

the pension fund.”

(Emphasis added)

19. Rather, it appears that the application of the pro-rata

formula to “Higher Wages” cases was introduced for the first time vide

e-mail dated 14.02.2024. A copy of the said e-mail, marked “for Internal

Circulation only,” is annexed as Annexure P-7, and the relevant extract

thereof is reproduced hereunder:

“2. Requests have been received from various Zonal and

Regional Offices to provide an example of calculation of

pension on higher wages where date of commencement of

pension is post-01.09.2014 i.e. pro-rata calculation is to be

done.

3. Accordingly, it is once again clarified that as per

provisions of EPS, 1995, pro-rata calculation is being done

since 01.09.2014 in normal pension cases (please refer

Circular No. Actuarial/18(2)/2008/Vol.III/7738 dated

29.08.2014). Now, after implementation of judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in eligible cases, the normal

pension earlier given has to be enhanced to pension on

higher wages. Since, there is no separate formula in EPS,

1995 for calculation of pension on higher wages in respect

of ordinary EPS members, therefore, in higher wages cases

also, as per provisions of EPS, 1995, calculation shall be

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 40

done similarly, where date of commencement is on and

after 01.09.2014:

(a) Calculation of Pension in Higher Wages Cases will be

on pro-rata basis as per provision of EPS, 1995:

Monthly Member's Pension = Pensionable Salary x

Pensionable Service/70.

Pro-rata calculation will entail separate calculation for

pensionable service prior to 01.09.2014 and pensionable

service post-01.09.2014.

(b) Calculation of Pensionable Salary in Higher Wages

Cases:

(i). For pensionable service prior to 01.09.2014: Pro-rata

pensionable salary i.e. highest monthly salary prior to

01.09.2014 or 60 months' average of salary preceding the

date of exit from the membership of the Pension Fund,

whichever be less.

(ii). For pensionable service post-01.09.2014: Pro-rata

pensionable salary i.e. highest monthly salary post-

01.09.2014 or 60 months' average of salary preceding the

date of exit from the membership of the Pension Fund,

whichever be less.

(c) Two years weightage, where due, is to be added to

pensionable service prior to 01.09.2014 i.e. in (b)(i)

above.”

(Emphasis added)

20. The respondents further sought to justify the application of

the pro-rata formula to “Higher Wages” cases through the issuance of

yet another clarification/circular dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-8).

However, this Court finds substance in the contention advanced by

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 41

learned counsel for the petitioner that the e-mail dated 14.02.2024

(Annexure P-7) and the subsequent clarification dated 18.01.2025

(Annexure P-8) mark a clear departure from the methodology earlier

prescribed vide Circular dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure P-6) and are not in

consonance with the amended provisions of the 1995 Pension Scheme.

By introducing a bifurcation of service into periods prior to and

subsequent to 01.09.2014, and by employing notions such as “highest

monthly salary” for the respective periods, the respondents have

adopted concepts which find no place in the Scheme itself.

21. As noted above, the 1995 Pension Scheme unequivocally

defines “pensionable salary” as the average monthly pay drawn during

the contributory service period comprised within the 60 months

immediately preceding the member’s exit. While Paragraph 11(1)

contemplates pro-rata computation in cases where contributions are

subject to the statutory wage ceiling, Paragraph 11(4), which governs

higher-wage cases, specifically envisages computation on the basis of

the actual higher salary.

22. It is settled law that executive or administrative

instructions cannot amend or override statutory rules, nor can any such

instructions be issued in derogation of the statutory framework. This is

for the reason that administrative directions, being non-statutory in

character, do not carry the force of law. On the contrary, statutory rules,

framed under the authority of an enabling statute, have the binding force

of law, provided they are consistent with and not repugnant to the parent

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 42

Act. Thus, while statutory rules occupy the field with statutory force,

mere executive instructions cannot operate to curtail, modify, or expand

their scope. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgments of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yash Charitable Trust vs. Union of

India, 2026 INSC 96; Paluru Ramkrishnaiah vs. Union of India, AIR

1990 SC 166; State of U.P. vs. Babu Ram Upadhyaya, AIR 1961 SC

751; Swapan Kumar Pal vs. Samitabhar Chakraborty, 2001(2) SCT

1104 (SC); and Ram Ganesh Tripathi vs. State of U.P., 1997(1) SCT

494 (SC).

23. Furthermore, this Court is unable to accept the contention

of learned counsel for the respondents that the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Sunil Kumar B. (supra) had upheld the applicability of the pro-rata

formula for computation of pensionable salary in “higher wages” cases.

A careful reading of the said judgment reveals that the issue concerning

the application of the pro-rata methodology in such cases was neither

raised before nor adjudicated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Rather, as

noticed hereinabove, the said methodology appears to have been

introduced for the first time through the e-mail dated 14.02.2024

(Annexure P-7), and therefore, was not even in existence at the time

when the matter was under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

24. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the pro-rata methodology for “Higher Wages” cases sought to be

introduced through the e-mail dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure P-7) and

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 43

clarification dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-8), travels beyond the

statutory framework of the 1995 Pension Scheme and cannot be

sustained in law. In such cases, the pensionable salary is required to be

determined based on average monthly pay drawn during contributory

period of service in the span of 60 months preceding the date of exit

from the membership of the pension fund. Accordingly, the first issue

stands answered in the aforesaid terms.

ISSUE 2: The petitioner(s)’ entitlement to interest on delayed

payment of arrears of pension

25. Conditions No. 6 and 7 of the Joint Option Form under

Paragraph 11(4) of the 1995 Pension Scheme required the petitioner to

deposit the full amount of contribution on salary exceeding the wage

ceiling under erstwhile Paragraph 11(3) (since deleted) and Paragraph

11(4) of the Scheme, together with interest up to the last date of the

month in which the payment was made. In this regard, this Court finds

substance in the contention advanced by learned counsel for the

petitioner that Paragraph 11(4) merely contemplates the exercise of a

joint option by the employer and employee and does not confer any

authority upon the respondent–EPFO to impose additional stipulations,

such as the levy of interest with retrospective effect. Furthermore, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B. (supra) had also not

authorised the imposition of any such condition.

26. Upon deposit of the contribution amount of 20,29,275/-

₹

by the petitioner, along with interest calculated up to the date of

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 44

payment vide cheque dated 25.06.2024, the respondents issued the

revised PPO on 23.12.2024 (subsequently revised vide letter dated

18.02.2025 available at Annexure P-5), sanctioning his pension at the

rate of 24,511/- per month with effect from 12.08.2019. Thereafter, an

₹

amount of 13,33,882/- towards arrears of pension, representing the

₹

difference between the pension payable on higher wages and the

pension originally sanctioned upon retirement, was released in January

2025, i.e., after a lapse of more than five years from the date of

retirement of the petitioner. Furthermore, as is evident from the e-mail

dated 15.02.2024 (Annexure P-14), the respondents were required to

issue the revised PPO within 15 days of the deposit/transfer of the

differential contribution towards higher pension. However, in the

present case, the revised PPO was issued only on 23.12.2024, i.e., after

an inordinate delay of approximately five and a half months.

27. It is trite law that pension is neither a bounty, nor a matter

of grace, but a vested right. The State is under a legal obligation to

ensure timely disbursement of pensionary and retiral dues as and when

they become payable. Failure to discharge this obligation entitles the

retiree to seek compensation in the form of interest for the delayed

payment. The entitlement to such interest is intrinsically linked with the

right to pension and other retiral benefits, and constitutes an integral

facet thereof. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of

the Full Bench of this Court in A.S. Randhawa vs. State of Punjab,

1997(3) SCT 468.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 45

28. Thus, where a statutory benefit is withheld for reasons not

attributable to the employee, the concerned authority is under a legal

obligation to compensate the employee by payment of interest. In the

present case, the delay was occasioned directly by the restrictive

interpretation of the 1995 Pension Scheme adopted by the respondent–

EPFO, which ultimately came to be corrected by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Sunil Kumar B. (supra). Consequently, the petitioner cannot

be made to suffer the erosion of the value of his pension due to the

administrative or legal errors of the respondents.

29. Furthermore, this Court is unable to accept the argument

put forth by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to interest

because he had already benefitted from interest on the differential

amount during the period it remained in his Provident Fund account.

Admittedly, the respondents themselves have recovered the differential

contribution from the petitioner along with interest to “neutralize” this

very imbalance. Having charged the petitioner interest at a specific rate

for the period where the funds remained with him, the respondents

cannot now use the same logic to deny him interest for the period his

pension arrears were unduly retained by the department. This Court is of

the considered view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case, principles of equity and fairness demand reciprocity. If the

respondents have levied interest upon the petitioner for delayed deposit

of the amount of contribution on salary exceeding the wage ceiling, they

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 46

cannot escape liability to pay interest for the corresponding delay in

release of arrears of pension.

30. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on the judgment

of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in

Employees Provident Fund Organisation vs. Achyut Bhoraskar W.A.

No.1441 of 2019, decision dated 16.12.2019, wherein, while dealing

with a similar controversy, the following was observed:

“5. The learned Single Judge keeping in view the identical

issue decided by the Division Bench has dismissed the writ

petition. The three writ appeal preferred by the Employees

Provident Fund Orders have been dismissed by this Court

vide a common order dated 23.08.2018 i.e. W.A.

No.766/18, W.A. No.887/18 and W.A. No.973/18. The

Division Bench has dismissed the writ appeal keeping in

view the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of R.C. Gupta and others v. Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident

Fund organization and others (SLP No.33032/2015). The

Division Bench of this Court in paragraph Nos.2 to 15 has

held as under:-

"2. This intra court appeal under Section 2 (1) of

Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyalayaya (Khand Nyay

Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by

the appellant / Employees' Provident Fund

Organization against order dated 03.01.2018

(Annexure A/2) passed in Writ Petition

No.4979/2017 by which the learned Writ Court

allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.1

(writ petitioner) and directed the appellant to accept

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 47

the amount from respondent No.1, which he

withdrew and revise his pension, as per the

directions given by Hon'ble the Apex Court on

04.10.2016 in the case of R.C. Gupta and others v.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

Employees' Provident Fund Organization and

others (SLP No.33032/2015). It is also observed by

the learned Single Judge that since appellant was

also not at fault and Hon'ble the Apex Court in the

year 2016 has directed them to give benefit of the

scheme without applying cut off date, hence the

appellant is also not liable to pay interest on the

arrears of pension to respondent No.1.

xx xx xx

9. Contention of the learned counsel for respondent

No.1 before the Writ Court was that appellant is

wrongly demanding interest on the amount so

deposited by respondent No.1. If respondent No.1 is

liable to deposit interest, then he is also liable to get

interest on the arrears of pension payable to him in

compliance to order of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Therefore, in order to maintain equity and balance,

the appellant be restrained to claim interest from

respondent No.1and he shall not claim interest on

the arrears of pension and the appellant is demand

interest, then respondent No.1 is also entitled for

interest on arrears of pension.

10. Learned Writ Court relying on paragraph No.11

of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case

of R.C. Gupta and others v. Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 48

Organization (supra) has held that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has permitted the Provident Fund

Commissioner to seek return of such amount which

the employees have withdrawn from the Provident

Fund Account; and has directed the Provident

Fund Commissioner not to claim interest along

with such amount of PF. It was also observed by the

Writ Court that by order dated 17.10.2012, the

appellant has rejected the claim of respondent No.1

for re-fixation of pension on the basis of actual

salary exceeding wage limit, but now the appellant

permitted to revise pension of respondent No.1 after

the judgment of the Supreme Court; and as he was

not at fault to withdraw the amount of PF,

therefore, he is not liable to pay interest on such

amount which he withdrew from his PF Account

and deposit it for the revision of pension.

xx xx xx

13. On due consideration of the arguments of the

learned counsel for the parties, so also the

reasoning assigned by the learned Writ Court in the

impugned order, we are of the view that there is no

legal flaw in the order passed by the learned Writ

Court. Judgment dated 22.09.2014 passed in Writ

Petition (C) No.12999/2014 T.V. Joseph and others

v. Union of India and others of the High Court of

Kerala at Ernakulam cited by the learned counsel

for the appellant will not be applicable in the

present facts and circumstances of the case."

xx xx xx

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 49

6. In light of the Division Bench order passed by this

Court as the controversy involved in the present case has

already been concluded, the present writ appeals also

stand dismissed.”

(Emphasis added)

31. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents could not

controvert the fact that vide circular/clarification dated 18.01.2025

(Annexure P-8), it has been clarified that interest on EPF dues arising

on account of wage arrears payable retrospectively may be recovered up

to the date of retirement or cessation of membership under the 1995

Pension Scheme, whichever is earlier. However, in the present case, the

respondents have recovered interest on the differential contribution

towards higher pension up to the date of actual payment.

32. Additionally, it must be pointed out that this Court vide

order dated 22.04.2026 in CWP No. 34409 of 2024 titled as Shiv

Kumar vs. Union of India and others, directed the respondents therein

to file an affidavit indicating the exact amount of interest imposed upon

the actual due amount and to place on record the details of interest

charged upon the petitioners from the year 1995 till the issuance of the

demand notices. In compliance with the aforesaid order, an affidavit

dated 14.05.2026 was filed in Court and the relevant portion thereof is

reproduced hereunder:

“3. That the present affidavit is being filed in compliance of

the above- mentioned direction of this Hon'ble Court. The

deponent after scrutiny of the records in the office of

Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, submits that on

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 50

the deposits made by the petitioners for the purpose of

grant of enhanced pension, the interest rate charged on the

differential contribution (the 8.33% employer share plus

the 1.16% additional contribution) is the ‘statutory rate of

interest’ declared by the Government of India for the

Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) for the respective

financial years. A table indicating the rate of interest along

with the respective years is reproduced herein below for the

kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court:

Year Rate of Interest

1995-96 to 1999-2000 12%

2000-01 (12% for 1st

Quarter and 11% 2nd to 4th

Quarter)

12% and 11%

2001-02 to 2004-05 9.5%

2005-06 to 2009-10 8.5%

2010-11 9.5%

2011-12 8.25%

2012-13 8.5%

2013-14 8.75%

2014-15 8.75%

2015-16 8.8%

2016-17 8.65%

2017-18 8.55%

2018-19 8.65%

2019-20 8.5%

2020-21 8.5%

2021-22 8.1%

2022-23 8.15%

2023-24 to 2025-26 8.25%

4. That the above-mentioned interest was charged on

compound basis.”

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 51

32.1 Therefore, it is an admitted position that the respondents

have levied interest at varying rates on a compound basis. Consequently,

this Court holds that the petitioner(s) shall likewise be entitled to

interest, computed on a compound basis and at the corresponding

applicable rates, on the delayed payment of arrears of pension. The

second issue stands answered accordingly in the aforesaid terms.

ISSUE 3: Disparity between the wages considered for contribution

and the wages adopted for pensionable salary

33. It is a fundamental principle of any contributory pension

scheme that there must be a parity between the wages on which an

employee pays their share and the wages used to determine their

eventual benefit. Any divergence between these two figures, where the

department accepts contributions on a higher wage but calculates the

pension on a lower one, is inherently discriminatory and legally

unsustainable.

34. In the present case, the petitioner has demonstrated a clear

mathematical inconsistency. While the respondents calculated the

differential contribution payable by the petitioner by including higher

wages, such as arrears of Dearness Allowance (DA) and benefits from

pay revisions, curiously, they excluded these very elements when

determining the pensionable salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner

had contended that the petitioner’s total salary during the relevant 60-

month period was 49,91,902/-, yet the respondents reckoned it as

₹

48,99,902/-. This discrepancy of nearly 92,000 arose solely from the

₹ ₹

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 52

respondents’ failure to apportion arrears of D.A. and pay revisions to the

specific months to which they relate.

35. The defence raised by the respondents that they are bound

by the ‘member ledger’ provided by the employer and that no

bifurcation of arrears was available, cannot be accepted by this Court.

The respondent-EPFO is a statutory body tasked with the correct

administration of a social security fund, therefore, it cannot be allowed

to hide itself behind administrative bookkeeping oversights or the

failure of an employer to provide month-wise bifurcations. Once the

respondents verified the higher wages for the purpose of collecting

money from the petitioner, they were effectively estopped from

claiming that those same wages could not be verified for the purpose of

paying the pension.

36. The petitioner has provided detailed calculation sheets

(Annexure P-11) showing that if the arrears are correctly apportioned

and the pro-rata principle is excluded (as held by this Court under Issue

No. 1), the monthly pension ought to be 28,212/-, instead, the

₹

petitioner was sanctioned a pension of only 24,511/- per month. This

₹

results in a significant monthly shortfall that deprives the retiree of his

rightful dues. Consequently, this Court finds that there exists a clear and

unjustified disparity between the wages considered for contribution and

the wages adopted for pensionable salary. Issue No.3 is answered,

accordingly.

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 53

CONCLUSION

37. In view of the foregoing discussion, all the captioned writ

petitions are disposed of in the following terms:-

a. The Circular dated 18.01.2025 (Annexure P-8) and the

internal e-mail dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure P-7) are

hereby quashed to the extent they prescribe the pro-rata

methodology for calculation of pensionable salary in

“Higher Wages” cases. Consequently, the respondents are

directed to forthwith recalculate the pensionable salary of

the petitioner(s) on the basis of the average monthly pay

drawn during contributory period of service in the span

of 60 months preceding the date of exit from the

membership of the pension fund, without applying the

pro-rata formula or bifurcating the service period.

b. The respondents shall ensure complete parity between the

wages taken into account for recovery of differential

contribution and those adopted for determination of

pensionable salary, including due apportionment of

arrears of Dearness Allowance and pay revision benefits

to the respective months to which they relate. The

consequential arrears of pension arising therefrom shall

also be recalculated and released to the petitioner(s).

c. The respondents are directed to pay simple interest at the

rate of 8% per annum on the aforementioned arrears of

pension arising from the recalculation of pensionable

salary without application of the pro-rata formula and

from the rectification of disparities between the wages

considered for contribution purposes and those adopted

for pension fixation. Such interest shall be calculated

from the expiry of 15 days from the date of submission of

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 54

the joint option forms by the petitioner(s) until the date of

actual disbursement of the arrears.

d. Furthermore, admittedly, the petitioner(s) were not paid

any interest on the delayed release of arrears representing

the difference between the pension payable on higher

wages and the pension originally sanctioned upon

retirement, even though such amounts had become due

immediately upon retirement. For instance, with regards

to the petitioner in CWP-28189-2025, an amount of

13,33,882/- towards the difference between the pension

₹

payable on higher wages and the pension originally

sanctioned upon retirement was released in January 2025

without any interest. Accordingly, the respondents are

directed to pay interest on the delayed release of the

aforesaid arrears, computed on a compound basis and at

the same rates at which interest had been charged from

the petitioner(s). Such interest shall be calculated from

the expiry of two months from the date of retirement of

the respective petitioner(s) till the date of actual

disbursement of the arrears.

e. The entire exercise of recalculation, release of arrears,

and payment of interest shall be completed within a

period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this order.

f. It must be clarified that the present judgment is a

judgment in rem, intending to give benefit to all similarly

situated persons, whether they have approached this

Court or not. Reference in this regard must be made to

the judgment rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs.

Arvind Kumar Srivastava, 2014(4) SCT 648. Therefore,

the respondent authorities shall be duty-bound to extend

CWP-28189-2025 & CONNECTED CASES 55

the benefit of this judgment to all similarly situated

persons. Such persons ought not to be compelled to

approach this Court for the aforesaid reliefs and shall be

at liberty to submit appropriate representations to the

respondents/competent authority within a period of three

months from today. Needless to say, the

respondents/concerned authority shall process these

claims expeditiously.

38. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

39. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other

connected cases.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)

JUDGE

27.05.2026

yakub

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No