ORDER : 1. These are the group of petitions which are preferred being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents. Since these petitions contain identical questions of facts and law, they are being decided by a common order. 2. Learned advocate, Ms.Shailja who is an empaneled advocate is called upon by the Court to appear in these matters. Although, the Court has chosen not to issue the notice to the other side because the respondents are bound to follow the directions issued by the Apex Court. 3. The facts for the purpose of grasping the contains of controversy drawn from SCA No.5209 of 2020 & the prayers sought for in this petition are as follow: “11... (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondent Provident Fund Authorities-Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to revise the Monthly Pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme w.e.f. 01.04.2016 on the basis of his actual salary along with interest @ 12% per annum and be further pleased to adjust the amount from the arrears payable to the Petitioner Employees; (B) Pending final hearing and disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships will be pleased to grant interim relief directing the Respondent Provident Fund Authorities-Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein to pay the revised Monthly Pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme w.e.f. 01.03.2020 on the basis of his actual salary; (C) An ex-parte adinterim relief in terms of Para 11(B) above may kindly be granted. (D) Any other and further reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice may also kindly be granted.” 3.1 All the petitioners are pensioners, who have not been extended the benefit of revised higher pension on the basis of the provident fund contribution with reference to actual salary received by them. 3.2 The petitioner employee was working with the Jaction Co-operative Credit Society of Western Railway Limited-respondent No.3 herein at Bhavnagar. The petitioner employee was appointed by the respondent society on 17.02.1984 and he was superannuated on 30.03.2016 on reaching the age of superannuation. The respondent society was established in the year 1912, having its head office at Mumbai and branches at three States i.e. Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan & having nine divisions in nine different cities including Bhavnagar. The petitioner employee was appointed by the respondent society on 17.02.1984 and he was superannuated on 30.03.2016 on reaching the age of superannuation. The respondent society was established in the year 1912, having its head office at Mumbai and branches at three States i.e. Maharashtra, Gujarat and Rajasthan & having nine divisions in nine different cities including Bhavnagar. This is a Co-operative society meant for the employees of the Western Railway. The petitioner was lastly serving as a Head Clerk at Bhavnagar. He was paid the salary of Rs.73,902 per month. The employees' contribution was Rs.7,685/- i.e. 12% of basic pay and the D.A. The petitioner employee received Rs.2,538/- as monthly pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme w.e.f. 06.03.2016 from the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Gujarat State. 3.3 The respondent society is covered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act, 1952 (‘the P.F. Act’ hereinafter). It has also been granted the PF for MH/41052. The Society was an exempted establishment upto 31.10.1999. However, from 01.11.2009 onward the exemption granted was withdrawn. 3.4 The respondent society transferred its past accumulation of Provident Fund Contribution of the petitioner and others for the period from 1995 till 31.03.2009 and also the details of wages of the covered employees in the Form 3A and Form 6A from 01.07.1995 to 31.10.2000. 4. It is the say of the petitioner that in case of R.C.Gupta and others Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, reported in 2018 (14) SCC 809 , the Court has permitted the Provident Fund Commissioner to seek a return of all amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withdrawn from their Provident Fund account before granting them the benefits of proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. The Court also directed that once such a return has made in whichever cases such return is due, consequential benefits in terms of the order of the Apex Court will be granted to the employees. The challenge before the Apex Court goes to an order passed by the Division Bench of Himachal Prades High Court reversing the order of learned single judge by which the learned single judge directed the appellant-employees before the Apex Court to be entitled to the benefits of deposits of 8.33% of their actual salary in their pension fund irrespective of the ceiling limit. The said percentage of 8.33 was out of the total 12% which constituted the employers’ share under the P.F.Act. The directions issued by the Apex Court are as follow: “6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have read and considered the orders of the High Court, the provisions of the Act, the Provident Fund Scheme as well as the relevant provisions of the Pension Scheme. 7. Clause 11 (3) of the Pension Scheme is in the following terms: 11. Determination of Pensionable Salary. (3) The maximum pensionable salary shall be limited to 1(rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500/--) per month. {Provided that if at the option of the 1 Sub-section by G.S.R.775(E), dated 8th October, 2001 (w.r.e.f.1-6-2001) 2 Sub-section by G.S.R.134, dated 28th February, 1996 (w.e.f. 16-3-1996) employer and employee, contribution paid on salary exceeding (rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6500/-] per month from the date of commencement of this Scheme or from the date salary exceeds [rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500/-] 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.] 8. Reading the proviso, we find that the reference to the date of commencement of the Scheme or the date on which the salary exceeds the ceiling limit are dates from which the option exercised are to be reckoned with for calculation of pensionable salary. The said dates are not cutoff dates to determine the eligibility of the employer employee to indicate their option under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. A somewhat similar view that has been taken by this Court in a matter coming from the Kerala High Court, wherein the Special Leave Petition (C) No.7074 of 2014 filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was rejected by this Court by order dated 31.03.2016. A beneficial Scheme, in our considered view, ought not to be allowed to be defeated by reference to a cutoff date, particularly, in a situation where (as in the present case) the employer had deposited 12% of the actual salary and not 12% of the ceiling limit of Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- per month, as the case may be. 9. A beneficial Scheme, in our considered view, ought not to be allowed to be defeated by reference to a cutoff date, particularly, in a situation where (as in the present case) the employer had deposited 12% of the actual salary and not 12% of the ceiling limit of Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- per month, as the case may be. 9. A further argument has been made on behalf of the Provident Fund Commissioner that the appellant-employees had already exercised their option under paragraph 26(6) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme. Paragraph 26(6) is in the following terms: “26. Classes of employees entitled and required to join the fund. xxx xxx xxx (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph, an officer not below the rank of an 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 that 3 [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 3 Sub-section By Notification No.S-350/2/2/96SS II, dated 4th May, 2001, for ”rupees five thousand”. Earlier the words “rupees five thousand were substituted by G.S.R.718(E), dated 23rd September, 1994 for the words “rupees three thousand and five hundred” (w.e.f. 1-10-1994). charges payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such employee]. 10. We do not see how exercise of option under paragraph 26 of the Provident Fund Scheme can be construed to estop the employees from exercising a similar option under paragraph 11(3). If both the employer and the employee opt for deposit against the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, exercise of option under paragraph 26 of the Provident Scheme is inevitable. Exercise of the option under paragraph 26(6) is a necessary precursor to the exercise of option under Clause 11(3). Exercise of such option, therefore, would not foreclose the exercise of a further option under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme unless the circumstances warranting such foreclosure are clearly indicated. 11. Exercise of the option under paragraph 26(6) is a necessary precursor to the exercise of option under Clause 11(3). Exercise of such option, therefore, would not foreclose the exercise of a further option under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme unless the circumstances warranting such foreclosure are clearly indicated. 11. The above apart in a situation where the deposit of the employer's share at 12% has been on the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, we do not see how the Provident Fund Commissioner could have been aggrieved to file the L.P.A. Before the Division Bench of the High Court. Al that the Provident Fund Commissioner is required to do in the case is an adjustment of accounts which in turn would have benefitted some of the employees. At best what the Provident Commissioner could do and which we permit him to do under the present order is to seek a return of all such amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withdrawn from their Provident Fund Account before granting them the benefit of the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Once such a return is made in whichever cases such return is due, consequential benefits in terms of this order will be granted to the said employees.” 5. The petitioner and other similarly situated employees approached Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Mumbai on 07.11.2017 and informed that they have contributed to the Pension Scheme, 1995 and they are ready to contribute the difference to the Pension Scheme. It was urged that the respondent society be directed to provide necessary computation to pay the difference of funds towards the employees’ pension scheme so that they can get the benefit of the pension. 6. The Additional Central Provident Commissioner (Pension), New Delhi issued a Circular on 08.06.2018 pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court to all Regional Provident Fund Commissioners, in-charge of the concerned regions on the subject of “Delay in implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order on payment of pension on higher wages-Regarding”. This communication also specifically directed that the many of the offices have not complied with the instruction of the Head Office. Certain findings and observations have also been reproduced in the relevant communication shall be necessary to reproduce. “4. This communication also specifically directed that the many of the offices have not complied with the instruction of the Head Office. Certain findings and observations have also been reproduced in the relevant communication shall be necessary to reproduce. “4. In this context, the following observations may be noted: (i) Payment of benefits to the members of the EPS-95 have to be regulated as per the provisions of the scheme and all concerned are required to comply with the said provisions. (ii) The manual for settlement of pension alongwith the module for calculation in the software has already been circulated from time to time. (iii) Even prior to the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 04.10.2016 Pension cases on higher wages were being settled as per the scheme provisions by utilizing the existing software. (iv) IS Division has already clarified that the revision of pension on higher wages can be processed by utilizing the 10D special module. (v) No instructions can be kept aside for compliance only on the ground that reference has been made to Head Office for further clarification on assumption basis without attempting to comply those instructions practically. Moreover, the revision of cases as detailed out in Para 2 above clearly shows that many field offices are taking appropriate actions on the detailed order of the Hon'bel Supreme Court duly circulated by Head Office for compliance by utilizing the provisions already existing in the relevant software, whereas some offices are deliberately not taking any action to revise the pension claims to eligible members by taking one plea or the other. (vi) Field functionaries are expected to know the provisions of the Act and Scheme and comply accordingly. (vii) Most of the references made to Head Office are sent directly bypassing the Zonal Office and containing no recommendations/ suggestion of RPFC-1 and Addl.CPFC (Zone); (viii) Non-settlement of pension cases in respect of eligible members in light of the Supreme Court order dated 04.10.2016 has not only put the concerned members to inconvenience but may also amount to disobedience of instructions of Head Office for compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. Therefore, it is once again directed to take appropriate steps to revise the pension cases of all the eligible members as per the existing software and provisions in the Pension Scheme. 5. Therefore, it is once again directed to take appropriate steps to revise the pension cases of all the eligible members as per the existing software and provisions in the Pension Scheme. All references made to Head Office on modalities of revision of pension as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court order on the matter may be treated as disposed and Non est. 6. The number of grievances due to Non-settlement of eligible cases is rising and it is made clear that the concerned RPFC-1/ Incharge of the Region will be held responsible for denial/delay in settlement of such cases to eligible applicants. If any applicant is found not eligible for revision of pension as per Hon'ble Supreme Court order, the same must be conveyed to the applicant within seven days of receipt of such request. 7. All the reference made to the Head Office on the issue of revision of pension on higher wages are accordingly disposed of and in case any Field Office still requires any clarification/ guidance, specific query may be forwarded through proper channel to the Head Office duly incorporating the observations/suggestion of RPFC-1/OIC and ACC Zone in this regard.” Thus, it is made clear to all regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned that even in the event of the applicant not found eligible for revision of pension taking into account the decision of the Apex Court, the same will need to be conveyed to the concerned applicant within a period of seven days of receipt of such a request. 7. In the case of the petitioner, not only prior to this communication, he has already urged the concerned authority but, subsequent to the said communication on 16.10.2018, individual declaration of pensioner as required by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Gujarat, India has been tendered to the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation. 8. This Court notices that the grievance on the part of the petitioner is that on 21.06.2019 also, no response was given to the earlier communication sent, by RPAD, which was addressed to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) at Bandra, Mumbai urging to allow the members of Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 the benefits of the actual salary as per the order of Apex Court in the matter of R.C.Gupta and others (supra). This notification dated 26.08.2014 has been quashed by the Apex Court. 9. This notification dated 26.08.2014 has been quashed by the Apex Court. 9. The Kerla High Court vide its order dated 12.10.2018 in its detail judgment has quashed and set aside the Notification No.GSR609 (E) dated 22.08.2014 evidenced by Ext.P.8.in W.P.(C) No.13120 of 2014. 9.1 This has been challenged by way of a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.9610 of 2019 the Apex Court rejected the same passing the following order: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material. Delay condoned. We have found no merit in Special Leave Petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any stands disposed of.” In wake of this it is urged that to consider the case of the petitioner and others, the grievance on the part of the petitioners are that no heed is paid to such a request although, the communication sent by the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) on 08.06.2018 makes it abundantly clear that even if the case of any of the petitioners is not found sustainable for revision of pension as per the Apex Court’s judgment and order, the same must be conveyed to the applicant within seven days of receipt of such a request. 10. It is reiteratively urged by the learned advocate, Mr.D.G.Shukla that no reply is given at all to any of the petitioners. 11. Yet another decision which is sought to be relied upon by the learned advocate, Mr.D.G.Chauhan in Civil Appeal No.10857 of 2016 All Manipur Pension Association by its Secretary vs. State of Manipur and others. Those of them which are found eligible, whose case is not in any manner is rejected. They shall be paid the revise pension within a period of twelve weeks. 12. In all the petitions, resultantly, the following directions are necessiated: (i) Prayers sought for by the petitioner in his communication dated 07.11.2017 followed by the declaration of 16.10.2018 and the Revision Application for revision of the pension along with the declaration dated 21.06.2019 shall be looked into on urgent basis. Let the same be decided as directed by the Additional Central Provident Commissioner. If any applicant is not found eligible for revision of pension as per the Apex Court’s direction, the same shall be conveyed to the concerned applicant within a period of FOUR WEEKS by way of speed post. Let the same be decided as directed by the Additional Central Provident Commissioner. If any applicant is not found eligible for revision of pension as per the Apex Court’s direction, the same shall be conveyed to the concerned applicant within a period of FOUR WEEKS by way of speed post. (ii) In the event of non-consideration or in the eventuality of denial of the revised pension, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court. 13. This Court has chosen not to adjudicate upon any of the issues, non-action and non-consideration on the part of the respondent are the ground for these directions to be issued. 14. All petitions accordingly are disposed of in the above terms. 15. Copy of this order shall be given to the learned advocate, Ms.Shailja for her to communicate to the concerned authority. Direct Service is permitted.