JUDGMENT : 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. The petitioners have further prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to act in the light of orders/directions rendered 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.’’], 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.”]. 5. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors.’’], 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.”]. 5. 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. Janardan Singh (10.03.1994) 06.01.1973 (L.D. Asst.) 31.03.2009 (Public Relation Officer) 34,148 1,673 2. Ramesh Kumar Singh (30.06.1960) 13.07.1990 (Deputy Commercial Manager) 30.06.2020 (Deputy Commercial Manager) 83,187 1,673 3. Arun Kumar Mishra (25.08.1951) 27.09.1973 (Steno Typist) 31.08.2011 (Sr. P.S. to M.D.) 50,481 1,775 4. Krishnankutty T.P. (04.12.1948) 17.08.1978 (Stenographer Grade-I) 31.12.2008 (Private Secretary to M.D.) 39,569 1,611 5. Devendra Prasad Singh (04.02.1959) 14.07.1986 (Mining Engineer Trainee) 28.02.2019 (Mines Manager) 1,18,608 2,733 6. Nirmal Ram (04.04.1950) 21.04.1973 (L.D. Assistant) 30.04.2010 (Head Assistant) 41,391 1,674 7. Shiva Nand Ray (01.01.1955) 01.01.1984 (Assistant) 31.12.2014 (Assistant) 62,969 2,159 8. Shri Kailash Prasad (21.01.1959) 10.01.1977 (D.R. Staff regularized on 30.09.1982 Clerk) 31.01.2019 (Assistant Accountant) 73,920 2,994 9. Maharaja Narayan Singh (01.01.1951) 01.05.1976 (Time Keeper) 31.12.2010 (Accountant) 33,046 1,775 10. Bindeshwar Pd. Srivastava (06.06.1948) 20.01.1973 (Typist) 30.06.2008 (Typist) 22,680 1,574 11. Diwakar Pd. Srivastava (10.07.1949) 01.10.1973 (Steno Typist) 31.07.2009 (Private Secretary) 34,481 1,704 12. Mr. Anand Choudhary (02.01.1952) 20.11.1976 (Accountant) 31.01.2012 (Accounts Officer) 39,785 1,712 13. Shri Hira Prasad Singh (19.07.1950) 01.01.1976 (4th Grade) 31.07.2010 (Clerk) 25,880 1,746 14. Surendra Kumar Sinha (06.07.1951) 10.05.1976 (D.R. Staff, regularized as Clerk on 30.09.1982) 31.07.2011 (Clerk, Sr. Selection Grade) 31,094 1,775 15. Shri Surendra Choubey (12.02.1954) 02.05.1978 (D.R. Staff, regularized on (24.06.1986 as Clerk) 28.02.2014 (Clerk) 38,560 2,174 16. Shri Parma Nand Choudhary (21.10.1954) 02.07.1973 (Driver) 31.10.2014 (Driver) 41,752 2,052 17. Sohan Ram (16.07.1951) 20.12.1975 (Clerk) 31.07.2011 (Assistant) 37,098 1,775 18. Amar Nath Singh (07.08.1955) 21.04.1986 (Chemist D.R., regularized on 07.12.1989) 31.08.2015 (Chemist) 56,809 2,158 19. Selection Grade) 31,094 1,775 15. Shri Surendra Choubey (12.02.1954) 02.05.1978 (D.R. Staff, regularized on (24.06.1986 as Clerk) 28.02.2014 (Clerk) 38,560 2,174 16. Shri Parma Nand Choudhary (21.10.1954) 02.07.1973 (Driver) 31.10.2014 (Driver) 41,752 2,052 17. Sohan Ram (16.07.1951) 20.12.1975 (Clerk) 31.07.2011 (Assistant) 37,098 1,775 18. Amar Nath Singh (07.08.1955) 21.04.1986 (Chemist D.R., regularized on 07.12.1989) 31.08.2015 (Chemist) 56,809 2,158 19. Susanata Kumar Saha (03.07.1957) 02.05.1977 (Daily Rated, regularized on 30.09.1982 as Clerk) 31.07.2017 (Assistant Accountant) 67,305 2,630 20. Ram Janam Mahto (16.01.1957) 03.03.1977 (Daily Rated Staff, regularized on 03.03.1987 as Driver) 31.01.2017 (Driver) 21,697 2,578 21. Triveni Prasad (16.08.1947) 23.11.1976 (Draughtsman) 31.08.2007 20,250 1,222 22. Surya Kant Mishra (06.06.1953) 03.03.1977 (Driver) 30.06.2013 (Driver) 29,430 1,889 23. Satya Narayan Prasad Mehta (30.11.1950) 11.11.1968 (Watchman) 30.11.2010 (Clerk) 24,000 (approx.) 1,716 24. Rajendra Goswami (02.07.1948) 01.01.1976 (Clerk) 31.07.2008 (Clerk) 15,986 1,296 25. Jageshwar Ram (13.01.1947) 20.11.1970 (Peon-cum-Driver) 31.01.2007 (Driver) 9,346 1,355 26. Peman Sharma (28.02.1952) 01.01.1975 (Peon) 29.02.2012 (Driver) 24,536 1,712 27. Bartu Mahto (06.01.1958) 09.09.1977 (D.R. Staff, regularized in June, 1988 as Peon) 31.01.2018 (Peon) 36,310 2,609 28. Raghu Nandan Prasad (20.10.1956) 17.03.1977 (D.R. Worker, regularized on 30.09.1982 as Clerk) 31.10.2016 (Clerk) 65,382 2,378 29. Devendra Kumar (29.11.1956) 24.09.1987 (Geologist Trainee, regularized on 02.02.1990 as Geologist) 30.11.2016 (Geologist) 1,05,900 2,128 30. Chandra Mohan Sharma (02.01.1946) 17.08.1978 (Mines Manager) 31.01.2004 (Sr. Mining Engineer) 20,057 1,232 6. Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO, while producing a copy of judgment dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. Etc.” reported in (2022) SCC Online 1521 and other analogous cases, 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. Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization & Ors.” reported in (2018) 14 SCC 809 [judgment delivered on 04.10.2016] and 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. 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. 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) (preamendment) 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. (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) (preamendment) 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. (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.” 7. 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. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners is in agreement with the said submission made by learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO. 9. 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. The respondent no. 1 thereafter shall 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.