JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. The petitioner retired on superannuation on 31.10.2014 while working under the Kerala Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited. The petitioner is a subscriber to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and Employees Pension Scheme. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to declare that the pensionable salary is to be calculated based on the average monthly pay drawn in any manner during the contributory period of service in the span of 60 months preceding the date of exit from the pension fund, without any exclusion of lumpsum payment. 2. The petitioner states that he along with others filed W.P.(C) No.5740/2015 seeking for a direction to sanction pension under the Employees Pension Scheme on the basis of actual salary. This Court, by judgment dated 24.02.2015, directed to refund the PF amounts already withdrawn with interest accrued thereon, to the Employees Provident Fund Organisation. The petitioner was required to refund Rs.5,18,478/-. 3. The petitioner remitted the said amount. The 2nd respondent thereafter issued Ext.P2 revised Pension Payment Order dated 11.09.2017 sanctioning Rs.12,065/- as monthly pension. Dissatisfied with the amount of monthly pension sanctioned, the petitioner requested the respondents to provide details regarding calculation of the amount of share to be remitted by the employee. The respondents thereupon Ext.P3 letter together with calculation statement. From the calculation statement, the petitioner noted that in certain months between January, 2010 and July, 2014, the salary for such months were reduced for the calculation of pensionable salary. This is evident from Ext.P4 information. 4. In Ext.P4, the salary for 60 months is taken as Rs.23,27,668/- and the pensionable salary is taken as Rs.38,794/-. However, in Ext.P3, the pensionable salary for the 60 months was taken as Rs.30,38,708/-. 5. The 4th respondent, as per Ext.P5 letter, informed the 1st respondent that after retirement of the petitioner, he was paid arrears of salary consequent to the declaration of DA and pay revision with retrospective effect. In the Form-3A submitted by the employer, the arrears of salary was shown as single payment and that it will make difference in actual salary for corresponding several months. The 4th respondent stated that monthly pension is worked out considering the last drawn salary actually drawn by the petitioner during 60 months prior to the retirement. 6. The petitioner states that the total salary drawn by the petitioner during 60 months preceding his date of retirement is Rs.26,86,570/-. The 4th respondent stated that monthly pension is worked out considering the last drawn salary actually drawn by the petitioner during 60 months prior to the retirement. 6. The petitioner states that the total salary drawn by the petitioner during 60 months preceding his date of retirement is Rs.26,86,570/-. The petitioner's pensionable salary therefore would be Rs.44,776/- per month. The petitioner is entitled to monthly pension taking Rs.44,776/- as pensionable salary. 7. The petitioner therefore requested the respondent to rework the pension. The petitioner had to file W.P.(C) No.61/2021 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment directing the 1st respondent to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The 1st respondent thereupon issued Ext.P7 letter holding that the petitioner's eligibility to get pensionary benefits on the basis of higher wages will depend on the ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court. 8. The petitioner states that though the Hon'ble Supreme Court took a decision dated 04.11.2022 in Employees Provident Fund Organisation and others v. V. Sunil Kumar and others [ 2022 (7) KHC 12 (SC)], the 1st respondent did not take a decision rectifying the mistake committed while calculating the pension payable to the petitioner. 9. The petitioner then filed W.P.(C) No.22783/2023. This Court, by Ext.P10 judgment dated 25.08.2023, directed the 1st respondent to pass orders on Ext.P8 and P9 representations of the petitioner. On enquiry made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P12 letter stating that the issue of paying pension to the petitioner on higher salary with retrospective effect will be considered after the employee remitting interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B. 10. In Ext.P13 letter, the 1st respondent has taken a stand that it is up to the employer to remit the arrears either by inclusion in the month in which it was due or in the months of payment of arrears in lumpsum. The 3rd respondent can consider the arrears only if the said lumpsum arrears were paid proportionately in the month it was due. The petitioner states that respondents 1 and 2 are not legally justified in refusing to revise pension though they have accepted the arrears of contribution based on revised salary. 11. The 3rd respondent can consider the arrears only if the said lumpsum arrears were paid proportionately in the month it was due. The petitioner states that respondents 1 and 2 are not legally justified in refusing to revise pension though they have accepted the arrears of contribution based on revised salary. 11. The petitioner further states that persons similarly situated like the petitioner were granted the benefit of retrospective pay revision and consequent bulk remittance of amounts. Therefore, Exts.P12 and P13 refusing to grant the benefit of pay revision and payment of arrears in bulk is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 12. Respondents 1 to 3 resisted the writ petition. Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the employer of the petitioner has confirmed that on his retirement, the petitioner was paid arrears of salary eligible to him by virtue of declaration of DA and pay revision with retrospective effect. The arrear payment was shown as single payment. Actually the arrear paid together is arrears of salary payable for the preceding several months. 13. Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the employer has requested to allow eligible pension to the retired employees taking into consideration the bulk remittance as wage arrears / DA arrears by allocating to the months it was actually eligible. The employer claimed that the retrospective payment was not due to any fault of the employer. It was due to pay revision with retrospective effect. The employer is therefore not liable to pay interest and damages for the Dearness Allowance and pay revision allowed and approved by the Kerala Government with retrospective effect. 14. Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that retrospective option on higher salary under the EPS, 1995 can only be considered subject to payment of interest under Section 7Q and damages under Section 14B, for the belated remittances made in bulk. As the employer has not remitted the damages and interest, contributions made under the EPS, 1995 as bulk payments belatedly, cannot be considered for higher pension. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3. I have also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 16. The petitioner complains of payment of lower pension than his entitlement. 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3. I have also heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 16. The petitioner complains of payment of lower pension than his entitlement. According to the petitioner, in Ext.P4 information provided by the Central Public Information Officer / APFC, the salary for 60 months preceding the date of retirement is taken as Rs.23,27,668/- and the pensionable salary is taken as Rs.38,794/-. Ext.P3, however, would show that the pensionable salary for 60 months was taken therein as Rs.30,38,708/-. According to the petitioner, the total salary drawn by the petitioner during 60 months preceding his date of retirement is Rs.26,86,570/-. If that be so, the pensionable salary would be Rs.45,776/- per month. The petitioner is entitled to receive monthly pension taking Rs.44,776/- as pensionable salary. 17. The claim of the petitioner is based on the arrears of salary received by the petitioner after his retirement on 31.10.2014 by virtue of declaration of DA and pay revision with retrospective effect. According to the respondents, the arrear payment was shown as single payment. The respondents did not take into consideration the arrears of DA and pay revision for the purpose of computing pensionable salary. 18. The Provident Fund authorities have taken a stand that the amount of lumpsum payment made as arrears of salary cannot be accounted to without submitting the revised ECR monthwise along with proof of remittance. Respondents 1 to 3 would submit that as the employer has not remitted 7Q interest and damages under Section 14B, the arrears of wages remitted retrospectively cannot be considered for the purpose of calculation of monthly pension. 19. Ext.P3 is information provided by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kochi to the petitioner. A statement of calculation of share to be remitted by the employee to Provident Fund is attached to Ext.P3. It is evident from Ext.P3 that certain amounts are deducted from the monthly salary of the petitioner which has no prima facie justification. 20. 19. Ext.P3 is information provided by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kochi to the petitioner. A statement of calculation of share to be remitted by the employee to Provident Fund is attached to Ext.P3. It is evident from Ext.P3 that certain amounts are deducted from the monthly salary of the petitioner which has no prima facie justification. 20. If the employer has paid arrears of DA and pay revision benefits to the petitioner in bulk and the arrears so paid covers fully or partly the 60 months period taken by the Provident Fund authorities for calculating pensionable salary, then the amounts of DA and pay revision benefits credited to the account of the employee should necessarily spread over to various months in respect of which DA and pay revision was effected. If the employer has remitted PF contribution in bulk consequent to payment of arrears and pay revision benefits, the monthly wages of the petitioner employee should be appropriately enhanced taking into account the DA and pay revision benefits. If that is done, the pensionable salary of the petitioner would necessarily increase and consequently, the petitioner will be entitled to a higher pension. 21. The stand taken by respondents 1 to 3 is that since the pension contributions on the arrears of DA and pay revision benefits are paid in bulk, the same cannot be considered for the purpose of computation of pensionable salary. If the employer and employee insist to take into account such remittances also, the said request can be considered only if the employer pays Section 7Q interest and Section 14B damages, as the contributions are remitted belatedly. 22. The said argument of respondents 1 to 3 cannot be accepted. Admittedly, pension contributions of the employer and employee arising out of the pay revision, has been received by respondents 1 to 3. Such pay revision benefits being dues which is to be added to monthly wages retrospectively, such enhanced monthly wages should be the basis for calculation of pensionable salary. The fact that the employer has not remitted interest amount under Section 7Q and damages part under Section 14B cannot be a reason to deny due PF pension to the petitioner. If any interest or damages is legally due to respondents 1 to 3 from the employer, respondents 1 to 3 may be justified in proceeding against the employer for recovery of 7Q interest and 14B damages. If any interest or damages is legally due to respondents 1 to 3 from the employer, respondents 1 to 3 may be justified in proceeding against the employer for recovery of 7Q interest and 14B damages. Non-payment of Section 7Q interest or Section 14B damages by the employer cannot be a reason not to pay due pension to an employee. 23. For all the afore reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. It is declared that the pensionable salary of the petitioner is to be calculated based on the average monthly pay drawn by the petitioner, inclusive of the arrears of DA / pay revision benefits received by the petitioner during the contributory period of service in the span of 60 months preceding the date of exit from the pension fund. Exts.P12 and P13 are therefore quashed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to compute the pensionable salary of the petitioner based on the actual pay drawn by the petitioner including DA / pay revision benefits. 24. A revised pension payment order in the above lines should be issued within a period of two months. The petitioner will be entitled to consequential benefits. The writ petition is disposed of as above.