ORDER : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 3 to forward the applications submitted by the petitioners to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 exercising option for payment of pension on the basis of higher wages drawn by them in the light of paragraph no. 26(6) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and paragraph no. 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 with an undertaking to remit the amount including up to date interest as may be calculated by the office of the respondent no. 1 for payment of enhanced pension on the basis of contribution made on actual wages/salary drawn by the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to process the aforesaid applications submitted by the petitioners for payment of enhanced pension on the basis of contributions as per actual salary/wages drawn by them to extend the benefit under the provisions of paragraph no. 11(3) of the employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and to compute and determine the pensionable salary of the petitioners on the basis of their actual wages drawn and accordingly, to make payment of such enhanced pension to the petitioners from their respective dates of entitlement (i.e. the date of retirement) within a period of one month or such period as may be directed by this Court. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to indicate the differential amount on the contribution actually made by them and the contributions due to be remitted on their behalf in view of the higher wages drawn by them so as to enable them to remit the differential amount for entitlement of enhanced pension on contributions as per actual salary/wages drawn by them. The petitioners have further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to act in the light of the order dated 4th October, 2016 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-14/2016 [ R.C. Gupta & Ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors.], reported in (2018)14 SCC 809 ; judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in W.P.(C) No. 5678/2018 [ Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh & Anr. Vs. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors.], reported in (2018)14 SCC 809 ; judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in W.P.(C) No. 5678/2018 [ Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.]; and judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in W.P.(C) No. 13120/2015 [ P. Sasikumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.]. 2. The petitioners have stated in the writ petition that they were appointed on different posts after observing due process of law under the respondent no. 3 (non-exempted establishment under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952). Their details have been mentioned in paragraph no. 6 of the writ petition, which are as under: Pet. Nos. Petitioners’ Name & D.O.B Date of Appointment & Post Date of Retirement & Post Last Wage in Rs. Pension as on date in Rs. 1. Vidya Nand Pandey 2.3.1956 3.1.1976 (Class IV staff) 31.3.2016 (Clerk) 55200 2196 2. Sudist Narayan Kant 3.1.1944 12.5.1965 (Peon) 1.2.2002 (Assistant) 11440 725 3. Sheo Nandan Prasad 25.11.1952 23.3.1977 (Daily rated regularized as Clerk on 30.9.1982) 30.11.2012 (Clerk) 34864 1741 4. Ghanshyam Singh 9.11.1954 1.3.1976 (Clerk) 30.11.2014 (Assistant) 54834 2242 5. Rajni Kant Choubey 1.1.1953 23.4.1977 (Daily rated regularized on 30.9.1982 as Clerk) 31.12.2012 (Clerk) 37152 1849 6. Nanhku Modi 20.1.1948 14.4.1967 (Clerk) 31.1.2008 (Assistant) 23408 1576 7. Ramayan Prasad 1.10.1956 8.6.1977 (Daily rated regularized on 30.9.1982 as Clerk) 30.9.2016 (Clerk) 62822 2498 8. Radhe Krishan Upadhyay 26.11.1952 21.4.1977 (Daily rated regularized on 30.9.1982 as Clerk) 30.11.2012 (Steno-typist) 34400 2026 9. Judagi Mochi 28.3.1953 1.10.1973 (4th grade) 31.3.2013 (Assistant) 49374 2057 10. Deo Narayan Yadav 25.1.1955 28.8.1980 (Mining Mate) 31.1.2015 (Mine Foreman) 47100 2096 11. Baidyanath Singh 4.2.1954 1.9.1977 (Watchman) 28.2.2014 (Driver) 28101 2111 12. Ramanand Sah 6.1.1948 28.9.1973 (Draftsman) 31.1.2008 (Draftsman) 22366 1427 13. Anirudh Mishra 13.3.1958 2.3.1977 (Daily rated regularized on 4.10.1983 as 4th grade staff) 31.3.2018 (Driver) 44940 2782 14. Nandjee Upadhyay 2.7.1950 10.2.1976 (L.D.C.) 31.7.2010 (Chemist) 26892 1522 15. Kauleshwar Ram 13.3.1947 1.1.1975 (Watchman) 13.3.2007 (Watchman) 10144 1190 16. Bhangi Ram 3.4.1949 7.11.1974 (Peon) 30.4.2009 (Clerk) 19300 1611 17. Bala Kant Jha 20.2.1957 14.4.1977 (Daily rated regularized on 18.11.1983 as 4th grade) 28.2.2017 (Class IV employee) 35360 2450 18. Jai Prakash Ram 3.8.1954 28.11.1982 (Mining Mate) 31.8.2014 (Mine Foreman) 51186 1925 19. Sumendra Prasad Singh 2.8.1950 4.6.1977 (Daily rated & regularized on 30.9.1982 as Clerk) 31.8.2010 (Clerk) 25029 1575 20. Bala Kant Jha 20.2.1957 14.4.1977 (Daily rated regularized on 18.11.1983 as 4th grade) 28.2.2017 (Class IV employee) 35360 2450 18. Jai Prakash Ram 3.8.1954 28.11.1982 (Mining Mate) 31.8.2014 (Mine Foreman) 51186 1925 19. Sumendra Prasad Singh 2.8.1950 4.6.1977 (Daily rated & regularized on 30.9.1982 as Clerk) 31.8.2010 (Clerk) 25029 1575 20. Ram Nandan Ram 19.1.1957 14.3.1976 (Daily rated regularized on 4.10.1983 as 4th grade) 30.6.2017 (Driver) 44940 2617 21. Sunil Kumar Dubey 3.9.1960 3.3.1977 (Daily rated & regularized on 4.10.1983 as 4th grade) 30.9.2020 (Clerk) 61542 3357 22. Barun Kumar Malviya 1.9.1953 1.6.1977 (Daily rated regularized on 30.9.1982 as Clerk) 31.8.2013 (Assistant Accountant) 40280 2096 23. Ram Prasad Ram 9.4.1952 1.1.1976 (Driver) 30.4.2012 (Driver) 26201 1949 24. Balmiki Singh 20.1.1951 1.9.1980 (Blaster) 31.1.2011 (Mining Mate) 21576 1690 25. Sushil Kumar Dubey 15.1.1957 14.2.1981 (Blaster) 31.1.2017 (Mining Mate) 47944 2439 26. Suresh Mochi 8.4.1956 8.4.1978 (Daily rated regularized on 21.9.2002 as 4th grade) 30.4.2016 (Grade IV staff) 18000 2206 27. Shyam Narain Singh 1.7.1951 30.11.1976 (Junior Mechanic) 30.6.2011 (Junior Mechanic) 21487 1775 28. Nasiruddin Miyan 7.1.1955 9.4.1976 (Daily rated regularized on 4.10.1983 as 4th grade) 31.1.2015 (Grade IV Employee) 25045 2283 29. Suresh Mahto 16.5.1957 28.5.1987 (Daily rated regularized on 21.9.2002 as 4th grade) 31.5.2017 (Grade IV Employee) 22597 2388 30. Dindayal Yadav 1.7.1950 16.12.1975 (Driver) 30.6.2010 (Driver) 20885 1746 3. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO, while producing a copy of judgment dated 04.11.2022 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Employees Provident Fund Organization & Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. Etc. [S.L.P.(C) No.8658-8659/2019], submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court while taking note of earlier judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.C. Gupta & Ors. (Supra.) has held in paragraph no. 44 of the same as under: “44. We accordingly hold and direct:- (i) The provisions contained in the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 are legal and valid. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent sub-paragraphs. (ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. So far as present members of the fund are concerned, we have read down certain provisions of the scheme as applicable in their cases and we shall give our findings and directions on these provisions in the subsequent sub-paragraphs. (ii) Amendment to the pension scheme brought about by the notification no. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22nd August 2014 shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. Transfer of funds from the exempted establishments shall be in the manner as we have already directed. (iii) The employees who had exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme and continued to be in service as on 1st September 2014, will be guided by the amended provisions of paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. (iv) The members of the scheme, who did not exercise option, as contemplated in the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme (as it was before the 2014 Amendment) would be entitled to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the post amendment scheme. Their right to exercise option before 1st September 2014 stands crystalised in the judgment of this Court in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra). The scheme as it stood before 1st September 2014 did not provide for any cutoff date and thus those members shall be entitled to exercise option in terms of paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, as it stands at present. Their exercise of option shall be in the nature of joint options covering pre-amended paragraph 11(3) as also the amended paragraph 11(4) of the pension scheme. There was uncertainty as regards validity of the post amendment scheme, which was quashed by the aforesaid judgments of the three High Courts. Thus, all the employees who did not exercise option but were entitled to do so but could not due to the interpretation on cut-off date by the authorities, ought to be given a further chance to exercise their option. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with. Time to exercise option under paragraph 11(4) of the scheme, under these circumstances, shall stand extended by a further period of four months. We are giving this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Rest of the requirements as per the amended provision shall be complied with. (v) The employees who had retired prior to 1st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment. (vi) The employees who have retired before 1st September, 2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of the paragraph 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood prior to the amendment of 2014. (vii) The requirement of the members to contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of their salary to the extent such salary exceeds Rs.15000/- per month as an additional contribution under the amended scheme is held to be ultra vires the provisions of the 1952 Act. But for the reasons already explained above, we suspend operation of this part of our order for a period of six months. We do so to enable the authorities to make adjustments in the scheme so that the additional contribution can be generated from some other legitimate source within the scope of the Act, which could include enhancing the rate of contribution of the employers. We are not speculating on what steps the authorities will take as it would be for the legislature or the framers of the scheme to make necessary amendment. For the aforesaid period of six months or till such time any amendment is made, whichever is earlier, the employees’ contribution shall be as stop gap measure. The said sum shall be adjustable on the basis of alteration to the scheme that may be made. (viii) We do not find any flaw in altering the basis for computation of pensionable salary. (ix) We agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of R.C. Gupta (supra) so far as interpretation of the proviso to paragraph 11(3) (pre7 amendment) pension scheme is concerned. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph. The fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the said judgment within a period of eight weeks, subject to our directions contained earlier in this paragraph. (x) The Contempt Petition (C) Nos.1917-1918 of 2018 and Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 619-620 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 10013-10014 of 2016 are disposed of in the above terms.” 4. It is further submitted that in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar B. (supra), the petitioners are now required to individually make online applications seeking enhancement of their pension on the basis of actual wages drawn by them, which will be decided by the respondent no.1 in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case particularly paragraph no. 44 of the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners is in agreement with the said submission made by learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO. 6. Under the said circumstance, the present writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make individual online applications in this regard before the respondent no.1, who shall thereafter consider the said applications of the petitioners in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar B. (supra) and dispose of the same by passing reasoned orders within a reasonable period.