IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13590 of 1999 Between: Shri J.S. Chandrasekhar, S/o. Late J. David, R/o Plot No. 44, Hastinapuri Sainikpuri P.O., Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Provident Fund Commission, Andhra Pradesh, Barkatpura., Hyderabad. 2 The Central Provident Fund Commission, Sharam Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, 110 001. 3 The Controller of Pensions, Andhra Pradesh, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in fixing the pension of the petitioner at Rs. 437/- in place of Rs.835/- w.e.f. 09/04/1998 as arbitrary , illegal and infringed fundamental rights guaranteed under article 14 and 19 (i) (g) and further direct the respondents to fix the pension at Rs.835/- per month w.e.f. 30/6/1997 in terms of Rule 12 of the Employee Pension Scheme, 1995 with annual increments there of or pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRIKANTH KAVETI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.R.N.REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in fixing the pension of the petitioner at Rs.437/- instead of Rs. 835/- with effect from 9.4.1998 as arbitrary, illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to fix the pension of the petitioner at Rs.835/- with effect from 30.6.1997 in terms of Rule 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 with annual increments thereof. It appears that the petitioner retired from service on 30.6.1997 before attaining the age of superannuation i.e., at the age of 57 years. By that time, he had completed 25 years of service and two more years of service is added for pension. Thus the deemed service rendered by the petitioner was 27 years as per para 12 (5) of the scheme. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for a minimum pension of Rs.835/- as per scheme with effect from 30.6.1997 with annual increments due on 30.6.1998 . His eligibility under the scheme is 25 + 2 = 27 years and his date of retirement was 30.6.1997 and the age at the time of retirement was 57 years. His total salary as on 30.6.1997 was Rs.6,200/- and above. Therefore, he is entitled to monthly pension of Rs.835/- with effect from 30.6.1997 less 10% towards return of capital to the nominee in the event of his death. However, according to the petitioner, the pension was fixed at Rs.437/- with effect from 9.4.1998 by mis-interpreting the provisions of the scheme. Further, the Central Government has not stipulated the annual increment of pension nor the respective Provident Fund Commissioner sought for clarification on this vital point. The scheme has come into force with effect from 16.11.1995. The rates of pension that were determined were based on the cost of living prevailing in 1995. The Central Government vide circular dated 13.1.1997 specified a sum of RS.835/- as per clause No.12 (5) of the scheme to the retiring employees on attaining the age of 58 years and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the same pension. Therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. A detailed counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the matter was ultimately referred to the central government for clarification regarding paragraph 12 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The Central Government vide its letter No.R015025/01/99-SS-II, Government of India/Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi, dated 10thMay, 1999 has clarified the matter, which reads as under: “Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of Paragraphs 12(3), 12 (4) and 12 (5) are to be read independent of the words “subject to a minimum of Rs.800/-“, subject to a minimum of Rs.600/- and “subject to a minimum of Rs.500/-“ provided the past service is 24 years. IN other words, a person will be entitled to a minimum pension of Rs.800/-, Rs.600/- or Rs.500/-, as the case may be, only if; (i)On the date of his supernnuation on attaining the age of 58 years, he had rendered 24 years of service; and (ii)The aggregate of (a) and (b) under paragraphs 12 (3), 12 (4) and 12 (5) as the case may be, les than the prescribed minimum of Rs.800/-, Rs.600 or Rs.500/- as the case may be. It is further clarified that in case the past service ie., eligible service on the date of attaining 58 years of age is less than 24 years of service, pension (i.e., pension according to formula) and the benefit (i.e, the past service benefit) will be reduced proportionately and in such cases, the minimum pension and past service benefit taken together will be Rs.450/- p.m., Rs.325/- p.m and Rs.265/- p.m. respectively. This may be treated as interpretation of the provisions of paragraph 12 decided by the Central Government under paragraph 41 of the EPS, 1995.” The above said clarification was issued with regard to paragraph 12 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner made a faint effort to dispute as to the clarification given by the Central Government, but did not place before this Court any material to show that the clarification issued by the Central Government was not correct or was not at all issued by the Central Government. In view of the above clarification issued by the Central Government under paragraph 12 of the Employees’ Pension scheme, 1995, I am of the opinion that since the petitioner retired from service before attaining the age of superannuation at the end of 57 years, he was entitled for only Rs.500/- and above and not Rs.835/- as claimed by the petitioner. In fact, the respondents have paid Rs.532/- as monthly pension as per the provisions of the scheme. In view of the same, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________ 15-04-2008 rkk .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Regional Provident Fund Commission, Andhra Pradesh, Barkatpura., Hyderabad. 2 The Central Provident Fund Commission, Sharam Shakthi Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, 110 001. 3 The Controller of Pensions, Andhra Pradesh, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. 4. 2CD copies