Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 979 (GUJ)

Kishor Girijashankar Upadhyay v. Union Of India

2022-08-24

BIREN VAISHNAV

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the communication dated 01.05.2019 and a further direction that the respondents calculate the monthly pension of the petitioners by adopting the correct method of calculation in accordance with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 and to pay to the petitioners the difference of monthly pension from September 2014 and continue to pay to the petitioners the arrears of the difference of monthly pension with interest at such rate as the Court may deem fit. 2. Facts in brief indicate that the petitioners are past and present employees of the GNFC, Bharuch. The petitioners are the members of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 ('EPS, 95' for short). The case of the petitioners is that all of them have rendered more than 25 years of service and are also members of the Employees Family Pension Scheme. The age of superannuation of the employees is 60 years whereas as per the scheme the exit is at the age of 58 years and therefore the petitioners are receiving the benefit of the EPS, 95 at the age of 58. 3. Mr A.K. Clerk, learned advocate for the petitioners in the context of the prayers made in the petition would submit that the petitioners are receiving pension but the amount of monthly pension is less than what it should be if the amount is correctly calculated. Mr. Clerk would set out the relevant paras namely paras 9 to 12 of the Pension Scheme and submit and demonstrate the flaws in the calculation of pension of each of the petitioners. For example, Mr. Clerk would illustrate the wrong calculation in the case of one Mr. H.P. Soni and submit as under: Shri H.P. Soni reached the age of 58 years on 30.08.2017 and his pension is fixed at Rs. 2866/- by the respondent whereas according to the correct calculation, it should be Rs. 4373/- (Loss of 34.5%). 3.1 Mr Clerk would submit that the formula for calculating monthly pension as given in Para 12 of the Scheme is as under: Monthly Member's Pension = Pensionable Salary x Pensionable Service 70 3.2 He would submit that the members are also entitled to the past service benefit for the service rendered prior to 16.11.1995, the date when the Pension Scheme came into force. Members are also entitled to the weightage of 2 years for rendering eligible service of 20 years or more. It is submitted by Mr Clerk that the respondents are calculating pension on the service rendered after September 2014 on the basis of average of last 60 months' salary. The contribution of the petitioners during the last 60 months is on the basis of the ceiling of Rs.6500/- per month for the service rendered prior to 1.09.2014 and the ceiling of Rs.15,000 after 01.09.2014, however, the respondents are calculating the pensionable salary on the basis of average of last 60 months salary but the respondents are not calculating the monthly pension on the basis of the said pensionable salary for the purpose of formula as per Para 12 of the Scheme. He would submit that for example in case of Shri H.P. Soni his service prior to 01.09.2014 is calculated in number of days i.e. 6856 and the same is multiplied by salary ceiling of Rs. 6500 and the product is divided by 365 multiplied by 70 resulting in pension of Rs.1744/- p.m. and the service after 01.09.2014 is calculated in days i.e. 1094 which is multiplied by average salary of last 60 months i.e. Rs. 11458 and the product is divided by 365 multiplied by 70 resulting in pension of Rs. 491 p.m. Adding 2 years of weightage service is calculated as 730 days multiplied by 6500 and the product is divided by 365 x70 resulting in Rs. 186/-. Thereafter Rs. 445 is added for past service. Therefore the respondents are calculating the monthly pension of Shri Soni as 1744 + 491 + 186 + 445 = 2866 only. 3.3 Mr. Clerk would submit that the above calculation is incorrect and as per para 12 of the Scheme, his total service in years must be multiplied by pensionable salary (average of last 60 months' total contribution multiplied by 12) and the product is to be divided by 70. Therefore, pensionable salary x pensionable service 70 11458x24(22+2weightage) =3928 + 445 (past service) = Rs.4373/- 70 3.4 Mr. Therefore, pensionable salary x pensionable service 70 11458x24(22+2weightage) =3928 + 445 (past service) = Rs.4373/- 70 3.4 Mr. Clerk would further submit that Shri H.P. Soni is receiving less pension than what he ought to have received under the Scheme due to the following reasons: (a) The respondents have bifurcated the pensionable service into 2 parts i.e. (1) Service rendered from 16.11.1995 to August 2014 when the wage ceiling was Rs.6500/- p.m. and (2) the service rendered from 01.09.2014 to the date of retirement/exit when the wage ceiling was Rs.15000/- p.m. (b) The respondents are calculating the weightage service of 2 years on the basis of wage ceiling of Rs.6500/- p.m whereas it should be added to the pensionable service and then average salary of 60 months prior to the date of retirement/exit should be applied. 3.5 Mr. Clerk would further submit that the respondents while calculating the amount of monthly pension have separated the service rendered before September 2014 and service rendered after September 2014. It is submitted that para 10 of the Scheme provides that pensionable service of the members shall be determined with reference to the contribution received or receivable on his behalf in the Employees' Pension Fund and para 11 provides that pensionable salary shall be the average monthly pay drawn in any manner including on piece-rate basis during the contributory period of service in the span of 60 months preceding the date of exit from the membership of the Employees' Pension Fund. Therefore the respondents are required to calculate the pensionable salary on the basis of average monthly pay drawn in the span of 60 months preceding the date of exit. The respondents cannot bifurcate the period of 60 months into service rendered before September 2014 and after September 2014. The action of the respondents in bifurcating the service is contrary to the provisions of the scheme and illegal. 3.6 Mr. Clerk submits that the respondents are not calculating pensionable salary for the period of 60 months immediately preceding the date of exit from the Scheme. For example. Shri H.P. Soni retired/exited on 30.08.2017. The GNFC has deducted an amount of Rs.1250/- for the month of August 2017 and remitted the same to the respondent and the respondents have received the same. For example. Shri H.P. Soni retired/exited on 30.08.2017. The GNFC has deducted an amount of Rs.1250/- for the month of August 2017 and remitted the same to the respondent and the respondents have received the same. However, while calculating the period of 60 months, the respondents have calculated 35 months' contribution at the rate of 1250 p.m instead of 36 months and 25 months' contribution at the rate of 541 p.m. instead of 24 months resulting in pensionable salary being reduced from Rs. 11597 to Rs. 11458 and therefore further loss of monthly pension to Shri Soni. Some of the petitioners had personally met the respondent no. 3 and had shown the calculation to him. The respondent no. 3 had agreed that there is an error in their computer programme due to which this happens. It is pertinent to note that these programming error affects millions of pensioners all over the country. 4. Ms. E. Shailaja Learned Advocate has appeared and argued on behalf of the Respondent No.2 that the method of calculation of pension by the petitioners is erroneous. She would rely on the relevant paras of the reply and make the following submissions: (I) Pensionable salary should be calculated in number of years and not in number of days. Further service of more than six months in a year should be treated as one full year and the service less than six months should be ignored. Reliance in this regard is placed on para 9(a) of the Scheme. She has submitted that this contention is completely erroneous and contrary to the scheme provisions. There is no provision of rounding off of "pensionable service” to the nearest year as done by the petitioners. Infact, “pensionable service” as defined in para 2 (xv) means the service for which contributions have been received or are receivable. Further as per explanation appended to Para 2(ix) an employee ceases to be a member of the Pension Fund from the date of attaining 58 years of age or from the date of vesting admissible benefits under the Scheme, whichever is earlier. The Petitioner Shri V.N.Dobaria reached age of 58 years on 19.08.2014 and thereafter his membership ceased. Thus in his case the Contribution in EPS was received/receivable from 16.11.1995 to 19.08.2014 i.e. 18 years, 9 months and 4 Days only and not for 19 years. The Petitioner Shri V.N.Dobaria reached age of 58 years on 19.08.2014 and thereafter his membership ceased. Thus in his case the Contribution in EPS was received/receivable from 16.11.1995 to 19.08.2014 i.e. 18 years, 9 months and 4 Days only and not for 19 years. The Petitioner cannot round off the actual pensionable service of 18 years 9 months 4 days to 19 years and claim under benefit for 3 months and 26 days as no contribution was received or receivable after cessation of his membership. As such there is no loss of 1% as alleged by the Petitioner. Similarly, the Petitioner Shri H.P.Soni and N.Rajaram Das have also erroneously rounded off their pensionable service of 21 years, 9 months and 15 days to 22 years and 22 years 6 months 15 days to 23 years respectively. This is in contravention of the Scheme provision as explained supra. Further, Para 9(a) deals with determination of eligible service. The said provision provides for rounding off of the contributory service by taking fraction of service for 6 months or more as one year and ignoring the service less than 6 months. Under the Pension Scheme a member becomes eligible for monthly pension on rendering 10 years of eligible service. The rounding off of the eligible service has been provided to ensure that pensionary benefits are not denied on account of shortage of a few months of service. Thus the total eligible service years 7 months and 29 days in respect of the Petitioner Shri H.P.Soni has been rounded off to 33 years. Once it is determined that a member has eligible service of 10 years or more, then, his monthly pension is computed in accordance with the provisions of Para 12 on the pensionable service for which contribution was received. (II) As per para 12, total service in years must be multiplied by pensionable salary (average salary of last 60 months) and the product is to be divided by 70. She has submitted that Para 12 nowhere specifies that the 'pensionable service' should be taken in years. In fact, “pensionable service” as defined in para 2(xv) means the service for which contributions have been received or are receivable. It cannot be considered for the period for which no contribution was received as explained above. She has submitted that Para 12 nowhere specifies that the 'pensionable service' should be taken in years. In fact, “pensionable service” as defined in para 2(xv) means the service for which contributions have been received or are receivable. It cannot be considered for the period for which no contribution was received as explained above. Thus in the case of Shri V.N. Dobaria the contribution in EPS was received/receivable from 16.11.1995 to 19.08.2014 i.e. 18 years, 9 months and 4 days only. Hence, to calculate the pension correctly on the basis of the period for which the contribution was received the total period is taken in days. Rounding off the pensionable service to 19 years will tantamount to higher pension for which no contribution was remitted by the member. This will cause strain to the Pension Fund which is a pooled fund. Further, Para 11(2) expressly provides that the total wages during the 60 month 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. (III) Calculating the weightage of two years service at the rate of Rs.6500/- per month is incorrect and contrary to the scheme provisions. In this regard, she has submitted that the contention of the petitioners is completely devoid of merits. The provision for weightage provided in Para 10(2) merely states that in case of a member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding the weightage of two years. Simply put, this means, that the total pensionable salary should be increased by two years wherever it is 20 years or more. Simply put, this means, that the total pensionable salary should be increased by two years wherever it is 20 years or more. Further, Para 12 (2) clearly provides to calculate monthly pension on a pro-rata basis for the pensionable service upto 01.09.2014 at the maximum pensionable salary of Rs.6500/- p.m and for the period thereafter at the maximum pensionable salary of Rs.15000/- p.m. As the maximum pensionable service rendered in the case of petitioners is prior to 01.09.2014, hence the pension for the weightage of 2 years is calculated at the maximum pensionable salary of Rs.6500/- p.m. (IV) Weightage service of two years should be added to the pensionable service and then average salary of 60 months prior to the date of retirement/exit should be applied. In this regard the contention of the Petitioners that the weightage service of 2 years should be added to the 'pensionable service” and then average salary be taken is erroneous and incorrect as per learned counsel for the respondent. She has submitted that in fact, the Petitioner is mixing two different issues, “pensionable service” and “pensionable salary” which are different provisions. “Pensionable Salary”, as per Para 11(1) is the average monthly pay drawn in the “contributory period” of service in the span of 60 months preceding the date to exit from the membership of the Pension Fund whereas, the weightage of 2 years is added to the total “pensionable service” and is not part of contributory service. The said weightage of 2 years is a sort of bonus given as a reward to employees who have superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years after putting longer years of service i.e. having rendered 20 years “pensionable service” or more. No contribution was received/receivable during the weightage period of 2 years and hence it cannot be reckoned for calculating the average monthly pay in the span of 60 months before retirement/exit. (V) Pensionable salary should be calculated on the basis of average monthly pay drawn in the span of 60 months preceding the date of exit. The period of 60 months cannot be bifurcated into service rendered before September, 2014 and after September, 2014. (V) Pensionable salary should be calculated on the basis of average monthly pay drawn in the span of 60 months preceding the date of exit. The period of 60 months cannot be bifurcated into service rendered before September, 2014 and after September, 2014. In this regard, the assumption of the petitioners that the period of 60 months for calculating 'pensionable salary' cannot be bifurcated into service rendered before September, 2014 and after September, 2014 is completely contrary to the provision contained in Proviso appended to Para 12 (2). The said Proviso was added in the Pension Scheme vide notification GSR NO. 609 (E) dated 22.08.2014 (w.e.f 01.09.2014). The said Proviso clearly stipulates that the members' monthly pension shall be determined on a pro-rata basis for the pensionable service upto 01.09.2014 at the maximum pensionable salary of Rs.6500/- per month and for the period thereafter at the maximum pensionable salary of Rs.15000/- per month. Thus in the case of the petitioner Shri H.P.Soni, who retired on 30.08.2017, pension will be computed on a pro-rata basis for the pensionable service upto 01.09.2017 at the maximum pensionable salary of Rs.6500/- and for the period 01.09.2014 to the date of exit at the maximum pensionable salary of Rs.15000/- per month. (VI) Pensionable salary is not being calculated for the period of 60 months immediately preceding the date of exit. In case of members who retire after September, 2014 the contribution remitted in the month of exit is not taken into account while reckoning pernionable salary. Example has been cited of Shri H.P.Soni who retired on 30.08.2017 and who has been contributing to the pension fund on ceiling limit. While calculating the period of sixty months only 35 months contribution @ 1250/- per month has been taken instead of 36 months and 25 months contribution @541/- per month has been taken instead of 24 months, resulting in pensionable salary being reduced from Rs.11597/- to 11548/-. In this regard Ms. Shailaja has submitted that as per Para 11(1) of EPS-1995 the pensionable salary is calculated by taking 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. Accordingly pay drawn during 60 months preceding the date of exit is taken correctly in computer system. Accordingly pay drawn during 60 months preceding the date of exit is taken correctly in computer system. (vii) For the members who retired prior to September, 2014 the calculation is almost in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. But for the persons who retired on September, 2014 the method of calculation is erroneous and contrary to the scheme provisions. In this regard learned advocate for the respondent has reiterated that in case of the members who have retire after September, 2014 pension is computed as per Proviso to Para 12(2) which was added vide notification GSR NO. 609 (E) dated 22.08.2014 and which provides that the members' monthly pension shall be determined on a Pro-rata basis for the pensionable service upto 01.09.2014 at the maximum pensionable salary of Rs.15000/- per month. (viii) The amount of monthly pension calculated in the State of Kerala matches with the demands of the petitioners but still there is negligible loss. In this regard it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that pension computation under EPS-1995 is done as per a software developed in this regard by NIC in confirmity with the Scheme provisions. This system for calculating pension as per the scheme provision is uniform in all offices of EPFO across India and as such the contention that the amount of monthly pension calculated in the State of Kerala matches with the demands of the petitioners is devoid of any merits and hence, ought to be rejected outrightly. 5. Having considered the submissions of the Learned advocates for the respective parties, at the outset Mr. Clerk has pointed that the he would not press his contention that the Pensionable Salary should be calculated in the number of years and not in the number of days. The relevant Paras which are required for consideration of the EPS, 1995 namely Paras 9 to 11 read as under: “9. Determination of eligible service. The eligible service shall be determined as follows : (a) In the case of “new entrant” the “contributory service” shall be treated as eligible service. The total contributory service shall be rounded off to the nearest year. The fraction of service for six months or more shall be treated as one year and the service less than six months shall be ignored. Explanation. The total contributory service shall be rounded off to the nearest year. The fraction of service for six months or more shall be treated as one year and the service less than six months shall be ignored. Explanation. - In the case of employees employed seasonally any establishment the period of “contributory service'' in any year, notwithstanding that such service is less than a year shall be treated as a full year. (b) In the case of the “existing member” the aggregate of contributory service and the 'past service' shall be treated as eligible service Provided that if there is any period in the “past service” for which the contributions towards the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 has not been received, the said period shall count as eligible service only if the contribut1ons thereof have been received in the Employees' Pension Fund. Explanation. - For the purpose of this subparagraph, the aggregate of contributory service and past service for less than six months shall be ignored and six months and above shall be rounded to a year. 10. Determination of Pensionable Service. - (1) The pensionable service of the member shall be determined with reference to the contributions received or are receivable on his behalf in the Employees' Pension Fund. (2) In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years, and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 2 years. 11. Determination of Pensionable Salary. (2) In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years, and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 2 years. 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 1st 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 taken into account 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. (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 member along with interest as declared under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme from time to time.” 5.1 Reading the Scheme and its relevant provisions would indicate that under the Pension Scheme a member becomes eligible for pension after rendering 10 years of service. Once the eligibility is determined than the monthly pension is calculated and computed in accordance with para 12 of the Scheme. 5.2 'Pensionable Service'' has been defined to mean the service for which contributions are received. With regard to the contention that the weightage of two years' service is given at the rate of Rs.6500 and not as per the last pensionable pay reading para 10 of the scheme indicates that the pensionable service is increased by adding two years weightage in case of an employee who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more. Therefore what is necessary is that while calculating pensionable service in accordance with Para 11 of the Scheme clearly provides that pensionable salary shall be average monthly pay drawn. Therefore what is necessary is that while calculating pensionable service in accordance with Para 11 of the Scheme clearly provides that pensionable salary shall be average monthly pay drawn. The period of two years is a period for which no contribution is received and therefore the addition has to be in accordance with the pro rata service in the maximum of the period pre 1.09.2014 and post 1.09.2014 and hence the petitioners have had a maximum of period pre 1.09.2014 the added weightage of two years has been counted on the basis of the ceiling of Rs.6500/- in accordance with Para 11 of the Scheme and there can be no fault in the said calculation. As is rightly pointed out by Ms E. Shailaja the added two years is a bonus given as a reward to the employees who have superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years after putting longer service i.e. more than 20 years of service. 5.3 With regard to the submission of the Learned Advocate for the Petitioner that pensionable salary should be calculated on the basis of average monthly pay drawn in the span of 60 months and that the period cannot be bifurcated into service rendered before September 2019 and after September 2014, the reading of the Para 11 indicates that the pensionable salary has to be the average of the monthly pay drawn during the contributory period of service. That salary has to be determined on pro-rata basis for the pensionable service divided into two periods, one prior to 1.09.2014 and the other post 1.09.2014 and therefore the ceiling amount would as the case may be Rs.6500/- or Rs.15,000/- Reading the explanation tendered in the affidavit-in-reply as for example in the case of Shri Soni what is evident is keeping in mind that the calculation has to be on a prorata basis computation is made on that basis for a period prior and post 1.09.2014. What is required to be done in accordance with Para 11 is that each period has to be taken as a separate compartment and then on a pro-rata basis based on the ceiling the computation has to be done. What is required to be done in accordance with Para 11 is that each period has to be taken as a separate compartment and then on a pro-rata basis based on the ceiling the computation has to be done. If the submission of the learned counsel that the entire period cannot be divided and the average of 60 months salary of the whole is to be taken then the intention of the scheme particularly of the calculation on a pro-rata basis as is specifically provided for shall stand violated. 5.4 Reading the definitions of the term “actual service” in Para 2(ii); “contributory service” in Para 2(iv) and “non contributory service” in Para 2(x) and “past service” in para 2(xii) which are reproduced in Para 12 of the reply what is evident is the calculation of pension is divided into three part as under: “12. So far as to the averments made by the petitioners in Para 5.1 & 5.2 are concerned, it is humbly submitted that the averments made in this para are denied since same are misconceived and misleading in nature. It is humbly submitted that the petitioners on their own have arrived at their calculation of pension amount by misinterpreting the provisions and without applying the relevant provisions of EPS 1995 in its right manner. The example calculation of pension at Annexure - B & C in respect of Shri V.N. Dobaria and Shri H.P. Soni are not correct. The application software of the Respondent Authority calculates the service period (in days) applicable for formula pension. The logic behind the consideration of service in days has its genesis in the definitions of Actual Service; Contributory Service; Non Contributory Service and Past Service. The application software of the Respondent Authority calculates the service period (in days) applicable for formula pension. The logic behind the consideration of service in days has its genesis in the definitions of Actual Service; Contributory Service; Non Contributory Service and Past Service. The definitions under Para 2 of the EPS, 1995 are below: Para 2(ii) “actual service” means the aggregate of period of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or from the date of joining any establishment whichever is later to the date of exit from the employment of the establishment covered under the Act ; Para 2(iv) “contributory service” means the period of ' actual service ' rendered by a member for which the contributions to the fund have been received or are receivable ; Para 2(x) “Non-Contributory Service” is the period of “actual service” rendered by a member for which no contribution to the “Employees' Pension fund” has been received or are receivable ; Para 2(xii) “past service” means the period of service rendered by an existing member from the date of joining Employees' Family Pension Fund till the 15th November, 1995; Here, the definitions of contributory service and non-contributory service are considered while calculating the pensionable service. Pensionable service is calculated after reducing non-contributory service from the actual service. The rounding off the service is taken only to decide eligibility for pension benefits but it is not applicable for pension calculation purpose. Under the circumstances Shri VN Dobaria and Shri H P Soni have been granted the correct benefits under the provisions of EPS, 1995 by the office of the deponent. The method of calculation in respect of the Shri V N Dobaria and Shri H P Soni given in the Annexure B & C petition are not correct. The correct calculation of pension under the provisions of EPS, 1995 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure Z1 and Z2. Further, it is to state that the reference made by petitioners in calculation of pension in respect of Shri N Rajaramadas in Annexure 'D' is based on the decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court and the same has been challenged by Union of India in SLP (C) 16721-16722/2019 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, EPFO has also filed Review Petition No. 1430-1431/2019 in SLP (C) No. 8658-8659/2019 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same matter. Further, EPFO has also filed Review Petition No. 1430-1431/2019 in SLP (C) No. 8658-8659/2019 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same matter. A two Judge bench of the Supreme Court hearing on identical matter (batch of 42 writ petitions and 2 contempt petitions, the lead matter being W.P. (C.) 233/2018 M Chokalingam Vs Union of India) vide order dated 06/02/2020 has directed the matters to be placed before the 3 Judges larger bench hearing the SLP and Review Petitions.” The calculation is divided into 3 parts: (a) benefits for past service (service from DOJ to 15.11.1995) (b) benefits for service from 16.11.1995 to 31.08.2014 on wage ceiling Rs.6,500/- in addition to weightage of 2 years (730 days) and (c) benefits for service from 01.09.2014 onwards on wage ceiling Rs.15,000/- (maximum) or the average of last 60 months' salary as the case may be.” 6. What therefore is evident is that as per the paras of the Scheme, the weightage has to be given after completion of 20 years as per clause 2 of Para 12 of the Scheme. The word pro-rata itself signifies that the division has to be calculated on the basis of respective periods of service which has been lost sight of by the Petitioners. The calculations therefore appear to be in consonance with the provisions and paras of the EPS, 1995 Scheme. 7. The Petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.