New Delhi: A new combination of three judges will hear a bunch of appeals filed by the Employees Provident Organisation (EPFO) regarding the disbursement of EPF pension to employees in proportion to their salary.

The Supreme Court posted the appeals to Friday (July 15) after counsel for EPFO pointed out that one of the judges in the division bench was part of the Rajasthan High Court Bench that had passed an order in the matter.
Following the lawyer's reference, Justice S Ravindra Bhat offered to recuse himself from hearing the appeals challenging the judgments of Rajasthan, Delhi and Kerala high courts that had quashed the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014.

The development could further delay the judgment in the case. Justice U U Lalit deferred the case to July 15 (Friday) saying a new combination of judges would hear the case. The court would not hear the arguments on Friday, but provide clarity on when the appeals would be heard.
The case came before the three-judge division bench of justices U U Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia after a two-judge division bench, citing the legalities involved, referred the petitions to it in August last.
Objection and offer to recuse

During the hearing on Tuesday, Advocate Aryama Sundaram representing EPFO said Justice Bhat was part of the Rajasthan High Court bench that had earlier passed a judgment on the matter. It was also pointed out that an advocate, who was Justice Bhat's junior, was representing the petitioners.

Justice Bhat suggested that the appeals against the Rajasthan High Court judgment could be heard separately, or he could recuse from hearing the case. After consulting with co-judges, Justice Lalit said the petitions against the Kerala High Court would be considered first.

Justice Lalit also referred to the long wait in forming the three-judge bench, and also the practical difficulties in forming a new combination of judges.

Only two courtrooms have three judge combinations: Bench one, headed by the Chief Justice N V Ramana and Bench two, headed by himself. Therefore, he would have to consult the Chief Justice, he said. Justice Lalit further added that referring the bunch of petitions to a new bench would further delay the case.

The court rejected the petitioners' request for an order to prevent various high courts passing different judgments in provident fund-related cases.
The case so far

The amended Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme in 2014 scrapped the then existing option to provide pension in proportion to the salary. It also amended the norm that fixed the pension based on 12-months average salary to 60-months' average.

Quashing the amendments in 2018, the Kerala High Court nullified the orders of the EPFO against awarding pension proportionate to the salary. The Supreme Court has been considering the petitions by the Ministry of Labour and EPFO, challenging the high court verdict.

A review petition was filed after the apex court had rejected the EPFO's plea. The three-judge bench has been considering various legal issues involved in the plea and in the orders of various high courts.

TAGS

The comments posted here/below/in the given space are not on behalf of Onmanorama. The person posting the comment will be in sole ownership of its responsibility. According to the central government's IT rules, obscene or offensive statement made against a person, religion, community or nation is a punishable offense, and legal action would be taken against people who indulge in such activities.