Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Order Date: 29 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: D R Dewangan, aged about 70, former employee of Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakri Samiti Bank Maryadit, Raipur.
  • Respondent No.1: Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), Regional Office, Block‑D, Raipur.
  • Respondent No.2: Chhattisgarh Rajya Sahakri Samiti Bank Maryadit, Raipur (formal party, but relief sought only against EPFO).
  • The petitioner alleged that EPFO had initially fixed his monthly pension at Rs 2,058 after he attained the statutory pension age of 58 on 02‑04‑2011, later increased it to Rs 9,299 on 24‑09‑2018 following the Supreme Court judgment in R.C. Gupta & Ors. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2018) 14 SCC 809 and a circular dated 23‑03‑2017.
  • EPFO subsequently reduced the pension back to Rs 2,058 by a letter dated 25‑02‑2022, effective March 2023, without granting the petitioner a hearing.
  • The petitioner submitted a joint option form under the pre‑amended Paragraph 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, in 2018, claiming entitlement to the higher pension.
  • EPFO contended that the petitioner retired on 30‑04‑2013 (age 60) and, as per Paragraph 2(ix) of the Scheme, ceased to be a member upon attaining 58 years, thus not eligible for the benefit of the R.C. Gupta judgment or the 2014 amendment.
  • EPFO relied on Supreme Court decisions in R.C. Gupta and Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Others vs. Sunil Kumar B. (2023) 12 SCC 701, which held that employees who retired before 01‑09‑2014 without exercising the option under Paragraph 11(3) are not members and cannot claim the higher pension.
  • The Court noted several similar writ petitions (e.g., WPS 7986 2024, WPS 7393 2024) that were dismissed on the same ground.
  • The Court examined the legislative history: the 2014 amendment (Notification 22‑08‑2014) raised the wage ceiling to Rs 15,000, deleted the proviso to Paragraph 11(3), and introduced Paragraph 11(4) allowing existing members as of 01‑09‑2014 to exercise a fresh option within six months (extendable by six months).
  • The Court concluded that the petitioner, having retired before 01‑09‑2014 and never having exercised the option under the pre‑amended scheme, is not an “existing member” and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the amendment or the Supreme Court judgments.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as having no merits.
  • No costs are awarded to either party.
  • Any pending interlocutory applications, if any, are also disposed of.

Topics: Pension Reduction, Supreme Court Precedent, EPFO