Order 1. In all the above stated writ petitions, similar questions are involved and accordingly, all the above stated writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ commanding the respondents to pay higher pensionable salary in terms of proviso to para 11 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. 3. Petitioners were employees of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited where the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 had been implemented. Petitioners made their contributions towards the aforesaid scheme and the aforesaid Corporation had deducted required amount from salary of the petitioners to make contributions in the above stated scheme. In course of time, petitioners started receiving salary much at Rs. 6500/- per month and the said corporation had been contributing the prescribed amount of salary exceeding Rs. 6500/- per month into pension fund but petitioners were denied their pension on higher salary. The then Managing Director of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited raised protest against the act of respondents writing vide letter no. 5210 dated 23.06.2009 and the Union of the employees of the aforesaid Corporation also made protest against the act of the respondents but of no avail and respondents refused to make payment on higher salary. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that admittedly, deduction had been made by the employer on higher salary of the petitioners and the aforesaid deduction were accepted by the respondents and therefore, they can not refuse to give pensionary benefit at the rate of higher deduction because the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 is a pensionary scheme and deduction on higher salary was never refused by the respondents. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Board of directors of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited took decision to make deduction on higher rate of salary and informed the respondents and similarly, association of employees of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited also gave consent of employees for deduction on their higher salary and therefore, according to para 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, the respondents are bound to give pensionary benefit at higher rate. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 is a pensionary scheme for employees and therefore, the interpretation of the provision of the aforesaid scheme should be for the benefit of the workers. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited decision reported in (2009) 10 Supreme court cases 123 in which Apex Court of this country held that the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 is a social welfare legislation intended to protect the interest of weaker section of society i.e. the workers employed in factories and other establishments and, therefore, it is imperative for the courts to give a purposive interpretation to the provisions contained therein keeping in view the Directive Principles of State Policy embodied in Articles 38 and 43 of the Constitution. Another decision cited is 2008(7) Supreme Court cases 111. In the above stated case, dispute was regarding date of birth of the employee whose date of birth had been entered in her service book as 31.12.1995 whereas in the record of provident fund commissioner, her date of birth had been entered as 24.09.1932 and Apex Court of this country held that date of birth entered into service book shall prevail over date of birth recorded in the record of provident fund commissioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also cited decision reported in 2009(9) Supreme court cases 61 in which it has been held by the Apex Court of this country that Employees’ State Insurance Act is a beneficial legislation and is a social security legislation and the canons of interpreting a social legislation are different from the canons of interpretation of taxation law and the courts must not countenance any subterfuge which would defeat the provisions of social legislation and the courts must even, if necessary, strain the language of the Act in order to achieve the purpose which the legislature had in placing this legislation on the statute book and the Act must receive a liberal construction so as to promote its objects. 7. 7. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly, the employer of the petitioners deducted and deposited the amount on the higher salary of the petitioners and the aforesaid deductions were accepted by provident fund commissioner and furthermore, the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 has been enacted to give benefit to poor workers and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance, petitioners should be paid pension on the higher rate of their salary. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that proviso to para 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 says that if at the option of the employer and employees, contributions paid on salary exceeding Rs. 6500/- per month from the date of commencement of the scheme or from the date salary exceeds Rs. 6500/- whichever is later and 8.33 per cent share of the employers thereof is remitted into the Pension Fund, pensionable salary shall be based on such higher salary. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid proviso to para 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 clearly speaks that if contribution is made on higher salary, pensionable salary should be based on the above stated higher salary. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents refuted the above stated submissions arguing that the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 is a subsidiary scheme of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 and section 5 of the aforesaid Act, 1952 says that the Central Government may, by notification in the official gazette, frame a scheme to be called the Employees’ Pension Scheme for the establishment of provident funds for employees or for any class of employees to which the said scheme shall apply and similarly, section 6 of the aforesaid Act says that contribution shall be paid by the employer to the fund shall be ten per cent of basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance for the time being payable to each of the employees and employees’ contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him. 11. It is further submitted by him that in exercise of power conferred by section 5 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, Central Government framed the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. 11. It is further submitted by him that in exercise of power conferred by section 5 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, Central Government framed the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. He further submitted that proviso to paragraph 26A (2) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 says that subject to the provisions contained in sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 26 and in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 27, or sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 27A, where the monthly pay of such a member exceeds six thousand five hundred rupees the contributions payable by him, and in respect of him by the employer, shall be limited to the amounts payable on a monthly pay of six thousand five hundred rupees. Furthermore, paragraph 26 (6) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 says that officer not below the rank of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, on the joint request in writing of any employee of a factory or other establishment to which this scheme applies and his employer, enroll such employee as a member or allow him to contribute more than six thousand five hundred rupees of his pay per month if he is already a member of the fund and thereupon such employee shall be entitled to the benefits and shall be subject to the conditions of the fund, provided that the employer gives an undertaking in writing that he shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such employee. Continuing his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the present case, no written joint request was made by the employer as well as the concerned employee for contribution of more than six thousand five hundred rupees of his pay per month and furthermore, no acceptance was given for contribution of more than six thousand five hundred rupees of pay per month by competent authority. It is further contended by him that part of contribution representing 8.33 per cent of employees pay which had been contributed by the employer under section 6 of the Act shall be remitted by the employer to employees’ provident fund and furthermore, provision of the para 3(2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 says that where the pay of the member exceeds rupees six thousand five hundred per month, the contribution payable by the employer and the Central Government be limited to the amount payable on his pay of rupees six thousand five hundred only and therefore, in the present case, benefit of pensionable salary on higher rate has rightly been refused. It is further contended by him that so far as provision of paragraph 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 is concerned, the same only determines the modality as to how the pensionable salary shall be calculated and therefore, petitioners can not claim pensionable salary on higher rate than the statutory limit on the basis of provision of paragraph 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. 12. Admittedly, petitioners were employees of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited and admittedly, the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited was exempted establishment under section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 since January, 1987 to 31.03.2004 and therefore, it is apparent that between the aforesaid period, contributions of the employer and employees were deposited with the Board of Trustee. Furthermore, it is an admission position that earlier the statutory limit for depositing contributions was only up to Rs. 5000/- which was later enhanced up to Rs. 6500/- in the year 2001. 13. It is obvious that there is nothing on record to show that between the aforesaid period, Corporation gave its consent to deposit contribution above the said statutory limit. It is apparent from the materials available on record that Board of directors of the corporation resolved to give the employer consent under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 on 22.07.2006 but there is nothing on record to show that the concerned corporation and its employees made any joint written request before the provident fund commissioner to make contribution more than statutory limit of Rs. 6500/- and therefore, even if the corporation resolved to make contribution more than statutory limit of Rs. 6500/- and therefore, even if the corporation resolved to make contribution more than statutory limit of Rs. 6500/-, then also, it can not be said that a valid option was given to the provident fund commissioner for making contribution more than statutory limit of Rs. 6500/-. Apart from this, there is nothing on record to show that provident fund commissioner gave its consent to the concerned corporation and its employees to make contribution more than statutory limit of Rs. 6500/-. Furthermore, according to the procedure, admittedly, contributions are not directly sent to the provident fund commissioner rather contributions are deposited in the account and therefore, provident fund commissioner can gather information about contributions and deposits only when complete return of deposit is filed. 14. In the present case, it has specifically been averred at paragraph 4 to the counter affidavit that the concerned corporation did not submit its return for several years despite of several reminders sent by the provident fund commissioner and therefore, it can not be said that at the time of deduction and deposit, the provident fund commissioner did not raise any objection. Furthermore, I find that Accountant General, Bihar, Patna has also raised objection before the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation limited regarding making contributions beyond the statutory limit and in the light of the above stated objection, Board of directors of the concerned corporation took a decision in its meeting held on 17.07.2012 to ensure the compliance of the direction of AG, Bihar, Patna. 15. Annexure F series to the counter affidavit reveals that the employees’ provident fund organization issued guidelines to Regional Provident fund Commissioner’s office as well as sub-regional offices and according to the aforesaid guidelines, in the cases where no option was given and consequently no permission was given but contribution on higher salary was deposited by the Establishment/employees on their own, such excess contribution will be considered as erroneous contribution and the pensionable salary will be restricted to the statutory ceiling existing from time to time. 16. 16. In the present case, admittedly, no option was given by Establishment as well as the concerned employees nor any acceptance was given by the provident fund commissioner and therefore, in my view, according to the aforesaid guidelines, excess contribution shall be treated as erroneous contribution and the petitioners shall only be entitled to get benefit of pensionable salary restricted to the statutory ceiling. 17. No doubt, the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 is a beneficiary legislation but the aforesaid scheme is subsidiary scheme of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 and when the statutory limit for making contribution has specifically been made in the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, in my view, the aforesaid statutory limit of contribution can not be stretched by the court. So far as proviso of para 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 is concerned, the said proviso only describes the modality of calculation of pensionable salary and the aforesaid proviso is applicable only when the contribution beyond the statutory limit is made in accordance with the rules. In the present case, the contribution beyond the statutory limit has not been made in accordance with rule as there was no valid option and acceptance for making contribution beyond the statutory limit. Therefore, proviso of para 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 is not applicable in this case. 18. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions and accordingly, all the above stated writ petitions stand dismissed.