Ongc Retired Employees v. Union Of India Rep. By The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on: 27.02.2019

Delivered on: 27.03.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN W.P.Nos.14368, 10051, 10274, 10413, 10414, 10415, 11609, 11610, 11611, 11612, 13308, 14145, 14189, 14736, 16229, 17170, 20458 to 20464, 22403, 23131, 23713, 24661, 24662, 25483, 29512, 4804, 5405, 5406, 5407, 5562, 5563, 7126, 846, 909, 910, 22343, 30681, 30684, 30688, 31347, 31358, of 2018 and 2429, 2433, 4308, 4436, 5315, 6289, 6296 & 6902 of 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.

12009, 12369 to 12371, 12374 to 12376, 12379 to 12381, 13584 to 13586, 13590, 13591, 13594 to 13596, 13599 to 13601, 15679, 16714, 17415, 20381 to 20384, 20429, 24028 to 24055, 24143, 26245 to 26247, 27031, 27654 to 27658, 28693 to 28702, 29664, 29666, 34481, 34483, 34486, 5953, 6651 to 6653, 6656 to 6658, 6661 to 6663, 6882, 8822 to 8824, 1009 to 1013, 1095 to 1103, 35791, 35796, 35799, 36520, 34936, 36543 to 36545 of 2018 and 697, 2711, 2704, 2706, 2715, 2717, 2719, 2700, 5274, 5276 of 2019 AND The following W.Ps., Reserved on 26.03.2019 W.P.NOs.26234, 32879, 33605 to 33607, 34331 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.27887, 27888, 27889, 36239, 36240, 36241, 37157 to 37163, 37165 to 37167, 33606 & 33607 of 2017 ONGC RETIRED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT ... PETITIONER in WP No.

SPIC EPS PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REP. BY V.T.

SANKARARAMASUBRAMANIAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.10051 of 2018 SPIC EPS PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REP. BY V.RAJASEKAR ... PETITIONER in WP No.10274 of 2018 1 N.SIVALINGAM 2 L.ALAGIRISAMY 3 S.RAGHURAMAN 4 G.BALASUBRAMANIAN 5 R.DORAISWAMY 6 V.R.NANJUKUTTY 7 S.GOVINDARAJ 8 N.AYYASWAMY 9 A.MUTHIAH 10 V.DHANARAJ 11 C.P.SHANMUGA SUNDARAM 12 D.YOBIRAJ 13 P.PUSHPARAJ 14 L NATARAJAN 15 A RANGASWAMY 16 JAYAPRAKASAM 17 R.KANAGARAJ 18 C.SWAMINATHAN 19 R.MUTHUSAMY

20 K.K.RAJAMANI 21 K.JAGANNATHAN 22 J.SYED SHOWKAT H 23 L.HARIKRISHNA DASS 24 K.SHANMUGANATHAN 25 K.KAWSALYA DEVI 26 S.RATHINAM 27 K.SHANMUGAM 28 P.BALASUBRAMANIAN 29 V.D.SHANMUGADASS 30 K.ARUNACHALAMOORTHY 31 A.MOHAMED JACKIR 32 N.PARAMASIVAM 33 K.MALLIKARAJAN 34 R.RAMASAMY 35 U.CHIDAMBARAM 36 S.NATARAJAN 37 S.SUBRAMANI 38 M.THIRUMALAISAMY 39 K.RAJAMANICKAM 40 S.SEETHARAMAN 41 K.RAVINDRAN 42 R.BALAKRISHNAN 43 S.X.AVELEO

44 P.KRISHNAN 45 K.NATARAJAN 46 A.SHANMUGAM 47 M.VENKATACHALAM 48 N.NATESAN 49 P.SUBRAMANIAM 50 N.RAMARAJ 51 R.MURUGESAN 52 S.VELLIMUTHU 53 P.RADHAKRISHNAN 54 S.VENKATASAMI 55 C.AROKIASAMY 56 P. SANKARANARAYANAN 57 C.THANGAVELAYUTHAM 58 A.PONNAN 59 A.PECHIMUTHU 60 K.PONNUSAMY 61 P.KAMATCHI 62 V.M.AMBROSE 63 V.BALAKRISHNAN 64 V.KUMANAN 65 V.BALACHANDRAN 66 T.DHANDAPANI 67 V.PALANI

68 M.MURUGANANDAM 69 P.MUTHUSAMY 70 R.DAKSHINAMURTHY 71 N.CHENNIAPPAN 72 K. THANGAVEL 73 A.NAGARAJU 74 N.ALLABAKSHA RAO 75 S.PALANISWAMY 76 K.RAVANAN 77 V.LOGANATHAN 78 C.LOGANATHAN 79 R.MANI 80 A.GOVINDARAJULU 81 K.ARUNACHALAM 82 I. YESSIAN 83 R.VASUDEVAN 84 P.MUTHUSAMY 85 R.SHANMUGAM 86 T.SIVASUBRAMANIAN 87 V.P.MANOHARAN 88 P.THANGARAJU 89 N.SUBRAMANIAN 90 B.RAMADOSS 91 P.PRABHAKARAN

92 R.RAJENDRAN 93 P.KASTHURI 94 G.INDRANI 95 P.KUMUTHAM 96 K.N.PALANISWAMY 97 K.PALANIAPPAN 98 R.PONNUSWAMY 99 R.SUBRAMANIAM 100 R.MAHENDRAN 101 R.SELVARAJ 102 N.THAMILARASI 103 V.VIJAYAKUMAR 104 P.JAYAPAL 105 N.GNANAVEL 106 K.RAMASAMY 107 R.SISILET 108 P.SUBRAMANIAN 109 S.R.MOHAN 110 A.NATARAJAN 111 A.CHINNASAMY 112 N.PALANISAMY 113 P.A.SIVADASAN 114 S.KRISHNAMURTHY 115 N.GOVINDARAJ

116 K.SHANMUGASUNDARAM 117 I.KANDASAMY 118 R.GOVINDARAJ 119 S.VELUSAMY 120 K.RAMAKRISHNAN 121 G.KUPPUSAMY 122 J.MANOHARAN 123 G.RAJARAM 124 R.K.ANGANNAN 125 A.S.JOSEPH 126 D.BALAMANICKAM 127 K.A.PALANISAMY 128 V.PARTHASARATHY 129 C.BADRUSAMY 130 P.CHINNAPPARAJ 131 R.RAJAN 132 C.KITNASAMY 133 V.KRISHNADEVARAJ 134 K.PALANISAMY 135 N.THIRUMALAISAMY 136 S.AYYAVOO 137 A.GURUNATHAN 138 S.JAYAPRAKASH 139 R.NALLAMUTHU

140 K.SUNDARAKUMAR 141 G.SUBRAMANIANM 142 R.MANOHARAN 143 A.SUBHAN 144 V.VALLIAMMAL 145 K.NARAYANAN 146 C.THANGAVEL 147 M.ABDUL KALAM AZAD 148 M.THIRUMALAISAMY 149 C.RAJAKRISHNAN 150 N.MANOHARAN 151 K.SATHIAVELU 152 K.SUBRAMANIAN 153 A.VELLINGIRI 154 K.KANNIMUTHAN 155 R.CHANDRARAJ 156 M.SHANMUGAM 157 I.U.KRISHNASWAMY 158 S.RAJENDRAN 159 TMT. R.P.GEETHARANI 160 C.RADHAKRISHNAN 161 P.KRISHNAMOORTY 162 P.SINGARAM 163 D.SELVARAJ

164 S.VELUSAMY 165 R.JEEVANANDHAM 166 K.KALIAPPAN 167 M.JAYAPANDIAN 168 A.KOMAGAN 169 P.NAGARAJ 170 M.MATHAIYAN 171 M.GOKULAVALSAN 172 R.SIVASAMY 173 K.RANGANATHAN 174 T.SUBRAMANIAN 175 S.RAMADOSS 176 P.MUTHUSWAMY 177 V.RANGADURAI 178 P.SHADHASHIVAM 179 P.M.ROSEMARY ...PETITIONERs in WP No.10413 of 2018 1 S.MOHANRAM 2 D. CHINNAKKANNU 3 N.SANTHAKUMAR 4 S.AIYAPPAN 5 S.RAMANI 6 A.SUBRAMANIAN 7 K.SHANMUGAM 8 VARADARAJULU R

9 G.BALASUBRAMANIAN 10 V.DURAIRAJ 11 K.S.KARUNAKARAN 12 A.N.THIRUSOOLI 13 N.RAJENDRAN 14 T.S.MADHAVAN 15 B.VINCENT PEERIS 16 K.KARUNAKARAN 17 A.SUBRAMANI 18 H.ALIJOHN 19 M.P. DELHI 20 A.N.SEETHA 21 K.DURAISAMI 22 P.MALAIRAJ 23 K.RAJAGOPAL 24 THANGAMANI P 25 G.RAJENDRAN 26 M.RAJESWARA PRASAD 27 R.SRINIVASAN 28 G.GAJENDRAN 29 M.RAJAMANI 30 R.KALIAPERUMAL 31 M.SUBRAMANIAM 32 T.S.THAMBURAYAN

33 S.KIRUBAKAR 34 D.VISHNUMAYA RAJA 35 A.ARUMUGAM 36 E.RAJU 37 R.SOUNDARARAJAN 38 P.S.VIJAYAKUMAR 39 G.KALADEVI 40 S.GOPALAKRISHNAN 41 N.KALIYAPERUMAL 42 P.BALASUBRAMANIAN 43 K. PALALNI 44 S.AMARNATH 45 V.BHUPALAN 46 M.NANDAGOPAL 47 J.CHANDRAN 48 B.PARTHASARATHY 49 E.SUDALAIMUTHU 50 A.T. FRANCIS 51 S.BALAN NATARAJAN 52 M.G.KIRABAKARAN 53 B.PALAVESAM 54 J.D.SEBASTIN 55 P.K.JAGADEESWARI 56 V.RAJASEKARAN

57 P.JAYARAMAN 58 J.VIOLET VIJAYAKUMARI 59 B.S RAMAMOORTHY 60 P.GOVINDASAMY 61 S.GOPALAKRISHNAN 62 S.K.INDU 63 D.VICTOR NAVARAJ 64 M.MANI 65 R.RADHAKRISHNAN 66 M.RAJALAKSHMI 67 N.NADANASABAPATHY 68 P.KAMARAJ 69 N.ARUMUGAM 70 K.NAVANEETHAM 71 R.NARAYANASAMY 72 P.PALCHAMY 73 M.A.NOORDEEN 74 S.RAMAMOORTHY 75 H.VAIYAPURI 76 A.K.SANTHANAKRISHNAN 77 A.NAGARAJAN 78 V.RAMASAMY 79 S.THANGAMARIAPPAN 80 M.BASHKARAN

81 S.RAJAGOPAL 82 L.MEYYAPPAN 83 A.P.SUBRAMANIAN 84 K.M.ABATHBANDAVAN 85 S.PARNAPAS 86 R.JAYAKUMARI 87 J.VASUDEVAN 88 M.UMA 89 B.BAKTHAVATCHALU 90 S.SIVA 91 B.VALLI NAYAGAM 92 K.SIVANNATHAM 93 D.JAYARAMAN 94 P.RAJAGOPALAN 95 R.V.JAYANTHI 96 T.THANASEKARAN 97 P.G.RADHA 98 S.MYTHILI 99 G.S.FLORENCE PREMA KUMARI 100 A.MUTHUSAMY 101 K.P.ARUMUGAM 102 R.JAMUNARANI 103 B.ASHOK KUMAR 104 G.SEMBIAN

105 P.SAMPATH KUMAR 106 V.G.SANCTA CRUZ 107 T.G.CHANDRASEKARAN 108 A.RAGHUPATHY 109 MIR MAZHER HUSSAIN 110 K.NAMACHIVAYAM 111 K.M.MUNUSAMY 112 S.JAYAKUMAR 113 S.MOHANA MURTHY 114 V.S.RAVICHANDRA RAO 115 P. DHANARAJALU 116 V.G.THIRUPURASUNDARY 117 I.POTHIMOHAN 118 D.SEKAR 119 JEGANATHAN M.

120 P.V.JANARTHANAM 121 C.SUBRAMANIAN 122 A.KAMARAJ 123 M.MUTHUKUMARASAMY 124 PR.SUGUMARAN 125 G.KRISHNAVEL 126 T.V.SUBRAMANIAN 127 V.DURAIVENKATRAMAN 128 A.ANVARDEEN

129 G.N.KRISHNAKUMARI 130 K.VALSALA 131 MOHAMMED FARHATHULLAH 132 S.PANDIAN 133 T.CHANDRASEKAR 134 S.NAGARAJAN 135 G.SATHYAMURTHY 136 S.LAKSHMANAN 137 S.YESUDIAL 138 E.UDAYAKUMAR 139 T.LAKSHMI 140 C.VATHSALA 141 D.JAMUNA 142 E.VIJAYAN 143 V.M.KUNHIRAMAN 144 R.S.GOPI 145 G.REVATHI 146 E.RAJARAM 147 S.VELAYUTHAM 148 P.S.SUNDARESAN 149 S.MOHAN 150 P.JEYAKARTHIKEYAN 151 V.ETHIRAJ 152 T.VYDEHI

153 P.MARY ANGEL 154 T.N.GOVINDARAJAN 155 R.BALRAJ 156 P.R.JAYARAMAN 157 S.GNANATHANGAM 158 A.RAJAMMAL 159 D.DAMODARAN 160 T.PUSHPARAJ 161 S.SARAVANAN 162 P.PRABAHARAN 163 P.KUMAR 164 S.MOHAN 165 V.SUBRAMANIYAM RAJU 166 A.CHANDRASEKARAN 167 J.HIRUDAYARAJ 168 P.JAYACHANDRAN 169 V.BALASUBRAMONIAN 170 T.DEVARAJ 171 D.GANAPATHY 172 S.RAJARAM 173 C.SHANMUGAM 174 N.KUPPUSWAMY 175 S.SANTHAKUMARI AGED 66 YEARS 176 V.SRINIVASAN

177 D.PALANI 178 K.VANATHI 179 K.JAYALAKSHMI 180 K.KANNAIAHRAJ 181 V.VASANTHA 182 K.PREAMA 183 K.DEAVA SENAPATHY 184 R.NARAYANAN 185 A.MOORTHY 186 R.SAVITHIRI 187 M.SANTHI 188 K.GANESAN 189 R.SURYANARAYAN RAO 190 P.SELVAM 191 N.PALANI 192 S.P.KANNAPAN 193 R.MALLEESWARI 194 C.DEIVANATHAN 195 P.RATHINAVELU 196 R.PERUMALSAMY 197 C.SEETHAPATHY 198 U.VAITHILINGAM ... PETITIONERs in WP No.10414 of 2018 1 S.NARAYANASAMY RAJA 2 S.CHANDRAMOHAN

3 S.SWAMINATHAN 4 S.ABDUL RAONISDAR 5 R.PURUSHOTHAMAN 6 M. RAJAMOHAN 7 N. MOHAN 8 G.SIVAKUMAR 9 K. GANESAN 10 R.RAVICHANDRAN 11 P. GANESAN 12 R.VENUGOPALAN 13 R.SIVAMANI 14 S.GANESAN 15 C.MANIVASAGAM 16 R.JAGANATHAN 17 L. AROKIARAJ 18 M. RAJAGOPAL 19 M.DAKSHINAMOORTHY 20 D.SUBRAMANIAN 21 S.GURUNATHAN 22 S.KALIAMOORTHY 23 R.THIRUGNANAM 24 R.RAVI 25 A.GANAPATHY 26 V.PANNERSELVAM

27 R.ANTHONISAMY 28 N. PASUPATHY 29 K. GUNASEKARAN 30 K. PADMAVATHI 31 M. KULANDAIVELU 32 A.IRUDAYARAJ 33 R.PACKIRISAMY 34 K. KULANDAIVELU 35 M. GOVINDARAJAN 36 C.DEVADOSS 37 S.PURUSHOTHAMAN 38 M. THAGAVELU 39 G.SHANMUGAVADIVELU 40 V.VADUVAIYAN 41 R.DANDAPANI 42 S.GOWDHAMAN 43 K. RAJANGAM 44 P. BALU 45 S.R.KALAISELVAN 46 P.CHINNAMANI 47 K. KANNAN 48 M. SELVAM 49 G.SURIYAMURTHI 50 R.PARAMASIVAM

51 J.NAGARAJAN 52 N.SELVAMANI 53 R.VELAPPAN 54 R.SOMASUNDARAM 55 D.ANANDARAYAN 56 C.MURUGESAN 57 S.SARGUNAM.

58 C.GOPINATH 59 S.THANANCHEYAN 60 N.VADUGARAJAN 61 R. MURUGAIYAN 62 T.V.PANNERSELVAM 63 S.PETHAPERUMAL 64 T.R.GANESAN 65 S.MURUGANANDAM 66 S.DHANABALAN 67 S.R.MURUGANANDAM 68 S.GANDHI 69 V.NAGARAJAN 70 R.RAJENDRAN 71 K.VEERABADRAN 72 R.THANDAPANI 73 K.JAYABALAN 74 M. CHANDRASEKARAN

75 D.SUBRAMANIAN 76 S.THAVASUMUTHU 77 A.RAVIKUMAR 78 K.ANNADURAI 79 D.DHANAPALAN 80 M.ANNADURAI 81 N.RAMALINGAM 82 S.GOVINDARAJALU 83 A.S.THIAGARAJAN 84 N.SUBRAMANIAN 85 P.MARIMUTHU 86 S.GOPU 87 T.R.KUMAR 88 S.RAJAMOHAN 89 D.SUNDARAM 90 K.BALASUBRAMANIAN 91 S.RAMACHANDRAN 92 D.ARUL JAGANATHAN 93 H.R.V.RAMASAMY 94 D.GUNASEKARAN 95 S.ELANGOVAN 96 I. DURAIRAJ 97 E.P.DHARMARAJAN 98 H. ARULMOZHI

99 R.VARADHARAJULU 100 K.NATARAJAN 101 V.R.SUBRAMANIAN 102 M.VADIVELU 103 S.RAMADOSS 104 S.SHANMUGASUNDARAM 105 T.R.JAYAPRAKASH NARAYANAN 106 A.KAHDAR MOHIDEEN 107 R.SIVASUBRAMANIYAN 108 R.SUKUMARAN 109 N.RAJENDRAN 110 V.SUBRAMANIAN 111 R.PADMARAJ 112 A.THANIKASALAM 113 K.NARAYANASAMY 114 A.B.NALLATHAMBI 115 G.RAJENDRAN 116 K.NARAYANASAMY 117 U.MAHALINGAM 118 N.DURAIRAJAN 119 V.RAVI 120 A.TAMILMANI 121 A.PANNERSELVAM 122 P.SELVAM

123 R.GUNASEKARAN 124 S.SUBBAIYAN 125 S.SUKUMARAN 126 D.SADAGOPAN 127 S.GOPALAN 128 S.CHINNASAMY 129 K.KANAGASABAI 130 T.ARUNACHALAM 131 R.RAJENDRAN 132 R.VISWANATHAN 133 R.NATARAJAN 134 A.JAYASEELAN 135 R.MURUGESAN 136 R.MARIYAPPAN 137 R.SEKAR 138 K.CHANDRAMOHAN 139 S.V.AMALDOSS 140 M.DHANASEKARAN 141 R.SHANMUGAM 142 S.BALASUBRAMANIYAN 143 A.DHARMARAJAN 144 S.JERALD GOVINDASAMY 145 P.GANESAN 146 M.ABDUL RAZACK

147 J.JEELAN BATCHA 148 V.SELVARAJ 149 M.RAMALINGAM 150 V.CHELLAIYAN 151 N.MUTHUSAMY 152 C.KANAGASABAPATHY 153 S.RAMASAMY 154 R.AYYAKKANNU 155 N.SINGARAVELU 156 P.GANAPATHY 157 N.BALASUBRAMANIAN 158 S.NADESAN 159 D.RAJAGOPALAN 160 V.NATARAJAN 161 P.PACKIRISAMY 162 S.KITTAPPA 163 M.RADHAKRISHNAN 164 R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN 165 M.ARULNATHAN 166 K.THANGARASU 167 A.CHINNAKKANNU 168 P.VIJAYALAKSHMI 169 A.RAJALAKSHMI 170 I.AROKIASWAMY

171 G.MOHANDOSS 172 R.ELANGO 173 A.VAITHIYANATHAN 174 V.RETHINAM 175 P.VEERAPPAN 176 J. AYYAPPAN 177 R.ELANGOVAN 178 R.PALANIVELU 179 P.MARAGATHAM 180 S.RAMANATHAN 181 P.PACKIRISAMY 182 V.JAYARAMAN 183 M.KARIKALAN 184 A.ABDUL LATHIFF 185 K. RAMASAMY 186 P.SELVAKUMAR 187 T.BALASUBRAMANIAN 188 T.ELANGOVAN 189 L. NAGESWARA RAO 190 S.VELAYUTHAM 191 A.BALAKRISHNAN 192 P.LOURDURAJ 193 S.KUMARIKAMALA 194 G.KARUPPUDORAI

195 A.GOVINDARAJU 196 B.KASIVISHVANATHAN 197 V.RAJAKUMAR 198 N.GANDHIMATHI 199 K.SIVASAMY 200 T.TAMILSELVAN 201 G.SIVASUBRAMANIAN 202 C.VIJAYAKUMAR 203 B. RAJAGOPAL 204 C.VASIVEL 205 C.RENGASAMY 206 T.IRULAPPAN 207 A.RAMACHANDRAN 208 G.VENKADACHALAM 209 R.NATARAJAN 210 P.JOSPHRAJ 211 M. SIVAPATHAVAIRAVAN 212 M. SIVANANDAM 213 T.VEERAPANDIAN 214 N.K. RAMAMURTHY 215 J.V. RAJARAMAN 216 P. SELVARAJ 217 V.RAVINATH SANKAR 218 R.ALAGANANDHAN

219 V.MANNAN UMASANKAR 220 A.INBARAJ 221 B.JAYALAKSHMI 222 A.MARY MARTHAL 223 P. GOPALAKRISHNAN 224 M. MANOHARAN 225 S.RAVI 226 N.R.SUBRAMANIAN 227 K.KARUNANITHI 228 P.THULASI 229 S.SELVARAJ 230 S.SUBBAIYAN 231 M.VENKATASUBRAMANIAM 232 N.BALAN 233 P.SELVARAJ 234 M.CHELLAPPA 235 S.ANDAL 236 S.KIRTHIVASAN 237 S.GANESHAN 238 P.SAMBANDAM 239 N.SELVARAJU 240 N.SWAMINATHAN 241 P.KOOTHAPERUMAL 242 T.N.SELVARAJ

243 R.SUKUMAR 244 N.SINGARAVELU 245 K. CHELLAMANI 246 S.ABDUL MUNAF 247 M.KALIYAPPAN 248 S.SUMATHI 249 C.DURAISAMY 250 M. RAJESWARI 251 VENKADAKRISHNAN K.

252 T.KANNAN 253 S.BATCHA 254 S.K. CHANDRAMOHAN 255 S.SAMPATH 256 R.GAJENDRAN 257 N. CHELLAPPAN 258 A.MURUGANANATHAN 259 K. KRISHNAMOORTHY 260 A.PANNERSELVAM 261 K.PANDIAN 262 M.KALIAPERUMAL 263 G.JAWAHAR 264 S.DORAIRAJ 265 PV. RAMAMOORTHY 266 N.JANAKIRAMAN

267 S.CHIDAMBARAM 268 A.ATHMARAMAN 269 K.KRISHNAMOORTHY 270 K.MUNIAPPAN 271 S.SELVARASU 272 K.SIVANANDAM 273 G.JOE RAJASEKARAN 274 V.PONNUSAMY 275 C.MUTHUSAMY 276 D.DUKKARAM 277 A.BALASUBRAMANIAN 278 R.SELVAMANI 279 J.JOHN THIRUMOORTHY 280 P.SELVARAJ 281 S.GUNASEKARAN 282 R.VELAYUTHAM 283 C.PONNAMBALAM 284 U.K.RAMALINGAM 285 A.PACKIRISAMY 286 M. AMBALAVANNAN ...PETITIONERs in WP No.10415 of 2018 1 R.KANNAIYAN 2 M.D.DHANDAPANI 3 C.SAM JACOB JOHNSON 4 S.RAJAMANICKAM

5 R.PERIYASAMY 6 A.NATARAJAN 7 R.MOHAN 8 R.MEENA 9 G.ALEXANDER 10 D.DHESINGURAJAN 11 D.RAMU 12 V.SUBRAMANIAN 13 S.RAJAGOPAL 14 R. KRISHNAMOORTHY 15 R.POOCHIANNAN 16 V.MUTHIAH 17 S.KUMARARAJ 18 NALLUCHAMY 19 K.MAHALINGAM 20 P.NAGARAJ 21 A.AROCKIASAMY 22 K.RENGASAMY 23 K.MASANAM 24 P.SYED KHADER 25 M.MARIAPPAN 26 T.MOHAN 27 R.JAYANTILAL 28 M.NOOR MOHAMED

29 M.SETHU MADHAVAN 30 K.MANOHARAN 31 K.KRISHNAN 32 S.ALAGAR 33 K.RAJENDRAN 34 A.ANNA KAMU 35 C.ANBALAGAN 36 M.SUBRAMANIAN 37 K.DHARMALLINGAM 38 S.SUNDARAMOORTHY 39 N.GOWDHAMAN 40 M.NATARAJAN 41 G.ESWARAN 42 S.SUBRAMANIAN 43 T.THIAGARAJAN 44 R.RAMSANKAR 45 S.KAJA MEERA MOHIDEEN 46 S.VENKATARAMAN 47 G.MUTHUKRISHNAN 48 D.S.KUMAR 49 M.MANIMEKALAI 50 V.LALITHA 51 S.VASANTHI 52 A.BALAKRISHNAN

53 M.PANDIYARAJAN 54 V.THIYAGARAJAN 55 M.GNANAPRAGASAM 56 M.N.ANANDASUBRAMANIAN 57 V.JEYABAL 58 S.RAJARAM 59 E.PONNUCHAMY 60 K.SANKARALINGAM 61 A.K.MANAMOHANRAJ 62 P.RAJENDRAN 63 T.SAMAYAMUTHU 64 M.MARIMUTHU 65 G.GANAPATHY 66 A.CHELLAMANI 67 M.MURUGESAN 68 J.MURUGESAN 69 G.SEKAR 70 N.KANNAN 71 R.MUTHUPILLAI 72 S.KRISHNAN NAIR 73 R.ANBALAGAN 74 M.JOHNSON 75 K.KARUPPAN 76 C.RAJ

77 RAMASUBRAMANIAN.S.

78 S.S.SHAHUL HAMEED 79 R.KAMARAJ 80 E.PALANI 81 R.NALINA 82 P.D.RANGU 83 R.RAJESWARI 84 M.N.VIJAYALAKSHMI 85 G.RAVICHANDRAN 86 K.N.ANURADHA 87 R.RADHAKRISHNAN 88 P.VELAYUDHAM 89 A.MURUGESAN 90 A.KANNIYAPPAN 91 P.LOGANATHAN 92 K. VARDHAN 93 D.PUSHPARAJ 94 N.KUMARESAN 95 P.M.KRISHNAMOORTHY 96 J. KUPPUSAMY 97 K. KALIYAPPAN 98 K. VEDIAPPAN 99 K. SUBRAMANIAN 100 R. RAMASAMY

101 C.NATARAJAN 102 V.CHINNASAMY 103 M. SUBRAMANIAN 104 N.MURUGAN 105 A.ARPUTHANATHAN 106 V.MURUGAN 107 L. MURUGESAN 108 M.KANNAN 109 M. DHARMALINGAM 110 K. RAMAN 111 A.SHAIK DAVOOD 112 M.MEGANATHAN 113 A.PALANI ASARI 114 R.ELUMALAI 115 K. MEERA 116 P.RANGAN 117 S.GOVINDAN 118 C.THIMMAPPAN 119 S.RAMAKRISHNAN 120 M.NAINAN 121 C.VEDIAPPAN 122 C.CHENNAKRISHNAN 123 M.SADHASIVAM 124 G.MANI

125 RAMASAMY.M.

126 G.NAGARAJAN 127 L.KRISHNAN 128 A.GOVINDASAMY 129 K.SUBRAMANIAN 130 M.MANI 131 T.RATHAKRISHNAN 132 P.CHANDRABABU 133 K.SIVALINGAM 134 R.VIJAYAN 135 K.ABDUL SALEEM 136 M.KRISHNAN 137 K.ELUMALAI 138 RANGANATHAN 139 V.P.RAMALINGAM 140 J.MOHANDOSS 141 G.RAAMALINGAM 142 T.P.ARUMUGAM 143 B.KRISHNAMOORTHY 144 E.GUNASEKARAN 145 R.VAITHILINGAM 146 K.ILAN TAMILAN 147 R.SEKAR 148 N.PURANSINGH

149 S.NATARAJAN 150 A.KRISHNARAJ 151 S.VENKATARAMAN 152 R.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM 153 A.PICHANDI 154 S.NAZEER 155 S.RAMANATHAN 156 J.GANESAN 157 P.ELANGOVAN 158 S.VENKATESAN 159 M.ANBARASAN 160 K.THOLKAPPIAN 161 A.VELAYUTHAM 162 K.T.SUBHARANIYAM 163 P.JOTHI 164 N.PANNERSELVAM 165 S.THIYAGARAJAN 166 R.CHANDRA SEKARAN 167 N.AMIRTHALINGAM 168 A.R.ANBALAGAN 169 K.ANBALAGAN 170 M.RAMAMOORTHY 171 R.CHOKALINGAM 172 R.ANANTHAN

173 M.SUNDARASEKAR 174 C.RAJENDRAN 175 P.THIVIYANATHAN 176 S.SEKAR 177 R.KANAKASABAPATHY 178 K.RAMALINGAM 179 A.R.PANEER SELVAM 180 K.ANBAZHAGAN 181 R.MANI 182 R.RAJENDRAN 183 G.RAJARAMAN 184 P.RAMAKRISHNAN 185 D.GANAPATHY 186 R.SHANMUGAM 187 M.PARISUTHAM 188 K.RENGANATHAN 189 S.NATARAJAN 190 S.BALASUBRAMANIYAN 191 N.SEKAR 192 A.JAYARAMAN 193 S.KRISHNAMOORTHI 194 A.GANAPATHY 195 S.MAYAKRISHNAN 196 M.RAMAKRISHNAN

197 N.SUDI MUTHU 198 M.SHAHUL HAMEED 199 S.SANKARALINGAM 200 S.M.NOOR JOHAN 201 KATHEEJA ... PETITIONERs in WP No.11609 of 2018 1 M.KASIVISWANATHAN 2 S.KUPPUSAMY 3 T.G.KASI 4 J.KANAKARAJAN 5 S.VISWANATHAN 6 M.VITTAL RAO 7 G.RANI 8 S.SUSILA 9 K.SARAVANA MOORTHY 10 V.JANAGAN 11 P.GOPALASUBRAMANIAN 12 W.SOLOMAN NAVAMAI 13 S.PITCHAIAH 14 M.MAHALINGAM 15 L.AMALANADHAN 16 JACOB THOMAS 17 S.THARMARAJAN 18 T. RAJADURAI

19 S.RAJAGOPAL 20 P. SUBBIAH 21 C.DEVADHASAN 22 K. ALAGU 23 D.SUBRAMANIAN 24 R.MATHIYARASAN 25 S.BALACHANDRAN 26 R.SUBRAMANIAN 27 S.KUMARASAMY 28 M. PONNARASU 29 R.SHANMUGAM 30 M.KAMALUDEEN 31 S.SOUNDARAJAN 32 P.PALANIYANDI 33 P.J.THULASI RAMAN 34 K.A.GAJARAJAN 35 A.THAMIZHARASAN 36 K.KANCHISHANMUGAM 37 J.DAMODARAN 38 V.MUTHUKUMAR 39 D.SIMPSON RAJASEKARAN 40 R.KALYANI 41 M.MEENA 42 A.JOSEPH

43 K.P.BALAKRISHNAN 44 M.ANANDA RAJ 45 S.KANNAN 46 S.VIJAYARAGHAVAN 47 S.DHANALAKSHMI 48 S.N.BALASUBRAMAN 49 P.GOVINDARAJAN 50 R.GNANAVELU 51 S.VINAYAGAM 52 J.JEYAKARAN 53 S.SANKARASUBBU 54 R.PARTHASARATHI 55 S.SAM CHRISTOPHER 56 S.JOHAN SELVARAJ 57 P.KANNAN 58 M.SUBRAMANIAN 59 G.PALANIVELU 60 M.BALAKRISHNAN 61 D.DHANDAPANI 62 A.RAJAGOPALAN 63 R.UDHYARANI 64 S.VENKATARAMANI 65 T.E.PERIYASAMY 66 J.MANOHAR

67 R.BALASUBRAMANIAN 68 S.VIJAYAN 69 A.ALAGIAH 70 V.S.GANAPATHY 71 C.KUMAR 72 M.JAMBUNATHAN 73 P.KALIAMOORTHY 74 G.UMAKANTHAN 75 V.SURENDRAN 76 T.KOTHIAMMAL 77 K.MOHANAN 78 M.SASIKALA 79 G.JAGANATHAN 80 M.RADHAKRISHNAN 81 V.SUDDALIMUTHI 82 J.KOMALA 83 TT.PANKAJAM 84 N.PREMAKUMARI 85 K.THIAGARAJAN 86 P.MUTHAIYAMU 87 K.R.NARASHIMAN 88 M.K.MUNUSAMI 89 V.RAMAIYAN 90 K.LAKSHMANAN

91 B.DIVIARAJ 92 S.KALIDAS 93 G.SEKAR 94 G.MEENAKSHI 95 R.JAYAKUMAR 96 C.SARATHASAI KUMARI 97 M.GUNASEKARAN 98 M.DHANARAJ 99 N.RAMANATHAN 100 H.SYED FAROOK 101 N.SAVARIMUTHU 102 C.SANTIYAGU 103 K.NATARAJAN 104 K.RAMESH BABU 105 R.THANGAVELU 106 S.AJOO 107 A.WILLIAM 108 K.B.MURTHY 109 J.MANI 110 H.RAMAN 111 J.RAMAKRISHNAN 112 K.S.RAJU 113 K.RAMACHANDRAN 114 N.L.KAMARU

115 J.VISWANATHAN 116 I.HARI DASS 117 T.NANJAN 118 SANKARAN.H.M.

119 K.P.BHASKARAN 120 N.THIYAGN 121 K.MOHANKUMAR 122 P.PALRAJ 123 S.JANAKI 124 M.RAJU 125 P.LOGANATHAN 126 S.DHARUMAN 127 M.CHANDRAN 128 T.RANGU 129 K.N.INDIRA 130 G.BARNABAS 131 B.S.MANI 132 B.SENNAN 133 T.NANJAN 134 S.M.SAITH BARITH 135 K.ASHOK KUMAR 136 N.RAMAN 137 M.DEVIBALAN 138 R.KRISHNAN

139 A.BHOJAN 140 K.JAGANATHAN 141 A.BALAKRISHNAN 142 S.KANDHIYA ... PETITIONERs in WP No.11610 of 2018 1 P.V.GAJAPATHY 2 H.SESHADRI 3 S.DEVARAJ 4 M.PARAMASIVAM 5 V.S.SUNDARA RAJAN 6 K.P.RAJENDRAN 7 V.THIAGARAJAN 8 M.MUNUSAMY 9 G.BALAKRISHNAN 10 G.SAMPATH 11 R.SANKAR 12 D.DHANDAPANI 13 B.VARADHARAJU 14 N.MARGASAGAYAM 15 D.DEVARAJ 16 G.KRISHNAMOORTHY 17 A.SATHYAMURTHY 18 M.MANI 19 N.DEVAKI 20 E.PERUMAL

21 M.UDAYAKUMAR 22 N.VENKATACHALAPATHY 23 P.GOPAL 24 K.ARUMUGAM 25 R.PARTHASARATHY 26 G.KUSALAKUMARI 27 M.RAMACHANDRAN 28 P.MOHANAM 29 V.SIVANANDAM 30 K.V.RAMACHANDRAN 31 C.GANDHI 32 K.R.DAMODARAN 33 M.KARUNAKARAN 34 R.SADAGOPAN 35 N.ARUL RAJ 36 R.SELVARAJ 37 E.SEKAR 38 K.MURTHY 39 K.NEELAMEGAN 40 E.SELVARAJ 41 K.PRAKASAM 42 G.ELUMALAI 43 O.J.PALANIVELU 44 K.ILANGOVAN

45 M.MARGA BANDU 46 V.NEETHIPATHY 47 T.KRISHNAMOORTHY 48 K.KUMAR 49 K.GOPINATH 50 S.SELVAMOORTHY 51 G.ARUMUGAM 52 S.DHANAPAL 53 M.NAGAJOTHI 54 K.SURIYA ACHARI 55 C.MUNISAMY 56 S.PADMANABAN 57 A.M.VEERAMANI 58 K.G. BALAKRISHNAN 59 M.MAHALINGAM 60 R.RAMALINGAM 61 K.MANIVANNAN 62 P.MAHENDIRAN 63 M.MANI 64 K.PERUMAL 65 T.PERIYASAMY 66 P.KANNAN 67 N.MANOKAR 68 R.THAVASELVI

69 A.J.VIJAYAKUMAR 70 K.KUPPAMMAL 71 K.PALANI 72 G.SAMPATH 73 I.SOUNDARA RAJ 74 M.PASUPATHY 75 P.SERAN 76 C.SANTHAKUMAR 77 A.P.SANKARAN 78 D.VETRIVEL 79 P.K.KOTEESWARAN 80 A.K.VIJAYAN 81 A.NATARAJAN 82 B.NANDAGOPAL 83 D.SUBRAMANIAN 84 M.CHINNATHAMBI 85 J.KUMARLAL 86 P.S.SUBRAMAIAN 87 P.M.VENKATESAN 88 A.MOHAMED HUSSAIN 89 N.S.GANESAN 90 S.M.APPADURAI 91 R.P.ARUMUGAM 92 N.KOTHANDAPANI

93 R.MUNISAMY 94 B.NARAYANAN 95 T.VIJAYA KUMAR 96 C.SUBRAMANIAN 97 N.GOPAL 98 P.VENUGOPAL 99 K.S.SRINIVASAN 100 K.V.RANGAN 101 R.KANNAN 102 P.P.KANNIAPPAN 103 M.VENUGOPAL 104 P.MOORTHY 105 P.SUBRAMANIAN 106 L.SUBRAMANIAN 107 T.THIRUMENI 108 V.DHANDAPANI 109 V.THANIKACHALAM 110 C.DHANDAPANI 111 A.JAYARAMAN 112 E.NARAYANAN 113 A.AMSAVELU 114 P.SEKAR 115 P.ELUMALAI 116 P.JAYARAMAN

117 G.MANIVANNAN 118 N.POOVAPPAN 119 N.KUMAR 120 G.SUNDRAMOORTY 121 M.NARAYANAN 122 P.MD.ANWAR 123 G.PANDIYAN 124 T.AYYAKKANNU 125 P.SHANMUGAM 126 P.SUBBARAYN 127 M.DHAKSHINA 128 S.VENKATESAN 129 P.KUPPUSAMY 130 M.VEERASAMY 131 G.KANNIAPPAN 132 M.RAMADOSS 133 A.SAGUL AHMED 134 S.MANI 135 S.THIRUNAVUKKARASU 136 S. NATARAJAN 137 K.NATARAJAN 138 Y.R.PANEERSELVAM 139 M.PARANDAMAN 140 S.KUMAR

141 N.MAHENDRAN 142 E.SUBRAMANI 143 N.ALAGIRISAMY 144 N.MANICKAN 145 G.MOHAN 146 V.NITYANANDAM 147 N.POOVATHAI 148 S.SRINIVASAN 149 P.GOVINDASAMY 150 M.KUSALDOSS 151 B.RAJALAKSHMI 152 V.MYLSAMY 153 L.KESAVAN 154 G.GANGIAH 155 P.KRISHNASAMY 156 G.BALASUNDARAM 157 A.BENTICK JOSEPH 158 P.MURUGAN 159 L.AZHAGIRI 160 A.ANTHONYSAMY 161 V.THIRUMURTHY 162 A.GOPALAKRISHNAN 163 M.THIYAGARAJAN 164 A.NANJAPPAN

165 A.NAGARAJAN 166 A.MAHALINGAM 167 S.ANANTHA KRISHNAN 168 M.SUBRAMANIAN 169 I.P.ESWARAN 170 P.NATARAJAN 171 N.ARUMUGAM ...PETITIONERs in WP No.11611 of 2018 1 G.GOVINDARAJAN 2 M.KRISHNAKUMAR 3 A.ALAGIRI 4 R.RAJAMANICKAM 5 P. VEERAMALAI 6 P. PARAMASIVAN 7 P. SELVARAJ 8 P. THANGAVELUL 9 G.ASAITHAMBI 10 P. SELVARAJ 11 P. RATHINAM 12 D.RAVICHANDRAN 13 R.PORSELVAN 14 S.ALAGIRISAMY 15 M.KUMARASAMY 16 V.UMADEVI

17 N.VALAYAPATHI 18 M.CHANDRA 19 D.RAVI 20 S.ARUMUGAM 21 R.RENGANATHAN 22 M.PENNACHI 23 M.R.MAYALAGU 24 K.BALU 25 K.SUNDAR 26 P.R.VARADHARAJAN 27 N.KAMALESAN 28 V.DHANUSKODI 29 R.LALITHA 30 M.RATHINAGIRI 31 P.PETER ROY 32 CHANDRASEKARAN K.

33 A.CELINEMARY 34 K.KARUNANITHI 35 S.LEELA 36 S.R.RAJU 37 T.BALRAJ 38 M.PANJA KALYANI 39 V.KRISHNASWAMY 40 N.G.MAHALAKSHMI

41 T.S.MURUGAN 42 PACKIRIDOSS.T 43 PICHAIPILLAI.P 44 V.MADHAVAN 45 N.PANDIAN 46 P.PAPPU 47 R.MURUGESAN 48 P.SUBRAMANIAN 49 S.SUBRAMANIAM 50 P.M.KALIYAPERUMAL 51 K.PURAVI 52 S.RAJESWARI 53 R.CHANDRASEKARAN 54 M.RAMACHANDRAN 55 P.GOVINDARAJAN 56 G.BALAKRISHNAN 57 M.NATARAJAN 58 D.KRISHNAVENI 59 E.D.CICILY 60 P.JAYABALAN 61 R.SUBRAMIAN 62 P.MOHAN 63 C.ELANGOVAN 64 K.SELVENTHIRAN

65 K.THANASEKARAN 66 V.RAJENDRAN 67 S.RAJENDRAN 68 S.ANBALAGAN 69 V.NAGARAJAN 70 VEERABADRAN 71 R.KRISHNAMURTHI 72 R.KARTHIKESAN 73 R.SUBRAMANIAN 74 M.DHAVAMANI 75 V.SUBRAMANIAN 76 P.SELVAVINAYAGAM 77 S.SEKAR 78 R.KANNADOSS 79 V.PITCHAI 80 K.NATARAJAN 81 M.GUNASEKARAN 82 J.JAYASEKHARAN 83 O.PERUMAL SAMY 84 T.RAMANLINGAM 85 V.SUBASH 86 I.BALASINGH 87 S.BALAKRISHNAN 88 T.CHARLES SIMON

89 E.SRINIVASAN 90 V.SINNADURAI 91 R.SRINIVASAN 92 V.KRISHNAN 93 R.MARIMUTHU 94 R.VIJAYA PANDIAN 95 B.GNANA PRAKASAM 96 M.NAGA SUBRAMANIYAN 97 I.CHANDRASEKARAN 98 S.SIVAKUMAR 99 S.NANTAKUMAR 100 T.P. KRISHNAMOORTHY 101 L.MARIA JOHN 102 S.NAGANATHAN 103 A.BALASUBRAMANIYAN 104 M.PERIYASAMY 105 C.SENTHILKUMAR 106 B.LAZAR LOURDY RAJ 107 R.JOHN 108 P.ARANGANATHAN 109 A.MANI 110 DURAI RAJ.K 111 R.MANI 112 J.SHANMUGASUNDARAM

113 C.SELVARAJU 114 S.NAVANEETHAM 115 S.VEERAN 116 M.MUTHUMANI 117 A.MUTHIAH 118 P.CHINNNATHAMBI 119 L.ANANDA RAO 120 V.SUBRAMANIAN 121 D.MANIAN 122 N.KULASAKARAN 123 M.GANAPATHY 124 S.BOOMINATHAN 125 S.PITCHAIAH 126 K.MATHIAZHAGAN 127 G.DURAIRAJAN 128 A.JOSEPH 129 A.RAJAGOPAL 130 M.PANNEERSELVAM 131 C.BALASUBRAMANIAN 132 S.VEILUMUTHU 133 R.CHIDAMBARAM 134 B.SOMASEKAR 135 K.M.CHOCKALINGAM 136 R.SELVARAJAN

137 S.SHANMUGAM 138 T.RAJENDRAN 139 K.GOPAL 140 M.PRABAKARAN 141 K.V.PATHASARATHY 142 A.LAKSHMANA KUMAR 143 S.KANAGARAJAN 144 R.VENGADASALAM 145 N.BALASUBRAMANIAN 146 A.MOHAMED YUSUFF 147 K.VELSWAMY 148 R.PONNUSAMY 149 V.CHINNARAJ 150 M.MALLIKA RANI 151 G.MARAPPAN 152 V.PAULRAJ 153 S.MOORTHY 154 K.C.KRISHNAMOORTHY 155 N.RAMA 156 P.NACHIMUTHU 157 A.SIVALINGAM 158 S.PADMANABAN 159 V.DHANASEKARAN 160 S.NAGARAJAN

161 V. REVATHI 162 L. JEYAPRAKASAN 163 T.DURAISAMY 164 A.THANGAVELU 165 S.SIVALINGAM 166 S.P. KARTHIKEYAN 167 R.MADESWARAN 168 M.KUNJAPPAN 169 K.SHANMUGHAN 170 R.CHANDRAN 171 C.MUNISWAMY 172 M.SELVAM 173 L. KANDASAMY 174 P.R.CHINNASWAMY 175 R.SHANMUGAM 176 A.BALASUBRAMANIAN 177 T.BALASUBRAMANIAN 178 SELVAM S.

179 P.R.VASUDEVAN 180 A.ELANGOVAN 181 R.MANICKAM 182 L.KANNAPPAN 183 S.MURUGESAN 184 K.S.RAMASAMY

185 M.K.SUBRAMANIAN 186 B.SUGUMAR 187 K.THANGAVELU 188 N.P.BALASUBRAMANIAM 189 V.M. RAVI 190 V.GUNASEKARAN 191 R.CHIDAMBARAM 192 V.BALASUBRAMANIAM 193 V.SUBRAMANIAN 194 V.C.PONNUSAMY 195 M.S.A.SIRAJUDEEN 196 E.SOUNDARARAJ 197 K.DASTAGIR 198 M.DHANABALAN 199 K.MOHANDOSS 200 S.MOHANAKRISHNAN 201 K.NATARAJAN 202 N.M.SHAHUL HAMEED 203 S.S.MOHAMED YOUSUFF 204 S.T.KAJA MOHIDEEN 205 M.MOHAMMED KOYA 206 V.SYED MOHAMED GANI 207 A.SHEIK MANSOOR 208 V.ABDUL HAMEED

209 O.K.ABDUL HAMEED 210 A.ABDUL HAMEED 211 S.MEERAN MOHIDEEN 212 O.M.ABDUL KADER 213 M. RAMAKRISHNAN 214 MOHAMMED MOHIDEEN 215 M.RAJASEKARAN 216 M.SETHURAM 217 V.ESWARAN 218 B.KANNIAHSAMY 219 S.THIYAGARAJAN 220 P.DEVADOSS 221 R.PANDIARAJ 222 R.P.RAVICHANDRAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.11612 of 2018 1 SITRA (SOUTH INDIA TEXTILE RESEARCH ASSN) PENSIONERS ASSN. REP BY ITS PRESIDENTS KADIRVEL ... PETITIONER in WP No.13308 of 2018 1 S.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM 2 HARIKRISHNAN T E 3 JEYA CHANDRA REDDY 4 SANKER B S 5 RAVINDRANATH J R 6 GOPALAKRISHNAN G 7 KRISHNAN R V 8 GEORGE VICTOR P

9 RAJENDRAN T 10 RAVINDRAN P 11 CHANDRAMOHAN V 12 MAHADEVAN S 13 RAMAKRISHNAN K 14 SANJEEVA RAO N 15 KRISHNAMURTHY S 16 NARASIMHAN K 17 MUTHUKUMAR P 18 SESHADRI S 19 MANICKAVASAGAM G 20 RAJAGOPALAN R 21 KAMALAMBAL T S 22 RAJALAKSHMI S 23 JAGADAMBAL AR 24 CHITTY BABU K 25 RENGANATHAN V 26 NETHRA SHOBANASIR T 27 KISHORE A 28 UMAKANTHAN G 29 BOOPALAN V 30 NARASIMHAN K V 31 SUNDARAMOORTHY S 32 VELLIANGIRI A

33 ARUNACHALAM M 34 SUGUMARAN P 35 GUNASEKAR J P 36 SAMARASAM S 37 JOHN LEO SINGARAYAN P 38 VIJAYARANGAN A D 39 ANGAMUTHU A 40 RAJENDRA BABU K 41 KRISHNAMOORTHY A 42 MURUGAN S 43 PARAMESHVARAN V K 44 GOPAL K R 45 GOPAL V 46 MURALI K 47 VISWANATHAN K 48 RAJAGOPALAN C 49 BALAN N 50 MOHAN RAO N R DR.

51 BOOPATHY R 52 SETHUMADHAVAN K P 53 THANGAMANI V 54 THIRUPPATHIRAJU N 55 JAGANNATHAN N 56 SUBRAMANIAM R

57 CHAKRAVARTHY KCK 58 KESAVAN P 59 UDAYA KUMAR P 60 SURESH G 61 KARMEGAM K 62 VENKATARAJU V 63 NATARAJAN T 64 SRINIVASAN R 65 ANBALAGAN M 66 KARUPPANNAN A 67 CHINNATHAMBI M 68 GOVINDARAJAN S 69 RAJENDRAN K V 70 VISWANATHAN R 71 KANNAN R 72 MURUGAN V 73 V M ARULSELVAM 74 ESWARAMOORTHY M 75 SUBRAMANIAN C 76 BALAMURUGAN S 77 GUNASEKARAN K 78 CHANDRASEKAR K 79 NATESAN R 80 RAMASAMY S

81 CHANDRASEKARAN K 82 RAMACHANDRAN P M 83 JEHAANGIR S 84 ABDUL MUTHALEEF A 85 DHARMARAJ N 86 DHARMALINGAM P 87 PERIASAMY M 88 KRISHNARAJ P 89 SATCHITHANANTHAM M 90 VANAMOORTHY S 91 VIJAYAKUMAR V 92 RAMAKRISHNA IYER S 93 MUTHUCHELLAPPAN S 94 PUSHPARAJ V 95 D DOMNICK MARSHAL 96 ALAGAR SAMY P 97 SANTHANAM K 98 PANDIARAJ K 99 THUSU N K 100 MEENAKSHISUNDARAM R 101 MANICKAM K 102 BHASKARA REDDY V 103 RAM BABU Y 104 D MOORTHY ... PETITIONERs in WP No.14145 of 2018

1 SPIC EPS PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REP. BY A.V.KUMAR ... PETITIONER in WP No.14189 of 2018 1 TECHNIP EPS PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSON. REP BY S.ASOKAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.14736 of 2018 1 GREENSTAR FERTILIZERS LTD.

(GFL) EPS PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REP. BY J.VISWANATHAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.16229 of 2018 1 NAGABOOSHANAM T.S 2 SIVAKUMAR V 3 PANNERSELVAN K 4 NATARAJAN S 5 RAVINARAYANAN R 6 SUKUMAR K 7 SHANMUGASUNDARAM T 8 MOHAN K 9 KOLAPPAPILLAY S 10 MURUGAN A 11 JAYA RAMAN P 12 JOTHI RAMALINGAM T 13 ASHA DHANDAPANI 14 SABIR ALI KHAN 15 MURALEEDHARAN PP 16 SUBRAMANIAN M

17 SANTHANAKRISHNAN R 18 RAMADASAN M V 19 JAGADEESAN K 20 DAVID P 21 BALASUBRAMANIAN P 22 NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN B 23 SANKARASUBBU S 24 MANDIRAMURTHY S 25 MANI KBS 26 NARAYANAMURTHY CH 27 VELAN R 28 RAVIKIRAN BABU 29 GIRIDHARAN P 30 KUPPUSAMY K 31 THANGAVEL P 32 MURUGAIYAN K 33 VELUSAMI P 34 VENKATESAN V 35 NAGARAJAN S 36 CHANDRASEKARAN G 37 SWAMINATHAN S 38 THIYAGARAJAN R 39 RATHINAM P 40 ANTONYRAJ P A

41 KRISHNA KUMAR D 42 JEYAPAUL A 43 RAVIKUMAR R 44 KRISHNA MOORTHY S 45 PERIASAMY S 46 RAMARETHINAM R 47 SRIDHARAN G 48 SESHADRI T 49 GOVINDAN C 50 MAHENDRA RAO 51 BALAVARAYAN T 52 AKBAR ALI M 53 ILANGO S 54 PAKKIRISAMY D 55 MANI R 56 MANOHARAN P 57 NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN K 58 MATHIVANAN K 59 AMUDHAN S 60 SANGAPILLAI T 61 KESAVAN S 62 ARJUNAN K 63 SUBRAMANIAN D 64 GANESAN K

65 ASOKAN A 66 RAMASUNDARAM C 67 KALYANASUNDARAM S 68 RATHINAM K P 69 PADMANABAN C ... PETITIONERs in WP No.17170 of 2018 1 M.KANAGARAJ ... PETITIONER in WP No.20458 of 2018 1 V.SUNDARAM ... PETITIONER in WP No.20459 of 2018 1 S.GOPALAN 2 A.R.PERUMALSAMY .. PETITIONERs in WP No.20460 of 2018 1 K.M. PADMANABHAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.20461 of 2018 1 P.KANNIAPPAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.20462 of 2018 1 S.RAMAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.20463 of 2018 1 V.VILVAJOTHY ... PETITIONER in WP No.20464 of 2018 1 G.JEEVANANDAN 2 N.RAJU 3 M.SADASIVAM 4 K.NATARAJAN 5 K.RAJU 6 K.PEETHAMBARAN 7 M.RAVICHANDRAN 8 C.VENKATAPATHIRAJU 9 S.NAGARAJAN 10 P.RAMASUBBU 11 P.CHANDRASEKARAN

12 S.KALAIMANI 13 P.RAVI S/O.P.CHINTHAIA 14 D.RAJARATHINAM 15 MANEY DORRAYYA NAIDU 16 R.SANKARANARAYANAN 17 A.RAVINDRAN 18 K.MARIAPPAN 19 M.RAJAMANICKAM 20 P.THANKAPPAN 21 A.JAYAKUMAR 22 C.GANDHI 23 P.GUNASEKARAN 24 G.MOHAN 25 L.SAMPATH 26 N.MANIKKODI 27 E.SUBRAMANIAN 28 R.MANICKAM 29 L.KANNAN 30 A.JAYACHANDRAN 31 S.MOHANDOSS 32 S.SRIDHARAN 33 R.RAMASAMY 34 P.RAVICHANDRAN 35 K.MOHAN

36 K.MATHIYALAGAN 37 K.SELVARAJ 38 V.THANGARAJ 39 K.SOMAN 40 M.PALANISAMY 41 S. MAHENDRAN 42 P.GANESAN 43 K.R. VENKATACHALAM 44 P.NATARAJAN 45 A.MATHIALAGAN 46 M.KALIYARAJ 47 K.VENKATESAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.22403 of 2018 1 NATARAJAN H 2 VENGATANARASU S 3 PALANI S 4 GNANASEKAR S 5 KONDAIAH C H 6 SENTHILVELAN S 7 INBADOSS R A 8 NALLASIVAM K 9 PALANISAMY P R 10 VENKATACHALAPATHY R 11 JAGADEESAN A 12 JAFFAR H

13 CHANDRASEKARAN V 14 RAJENDRAN P 15 MUTHAMIL SELVAN T 16 ELANGO S 17 ARUMUGAM K 18 SIVAGURU T 19 RAMASAMY M 20 MANI V 21 GOVINDAN A 22 BOOPATHY S 23 VALARMATHI R 24 SANTHIRAJ S 25 SIDDALINGAM S 26 SHANMUGAM M 27 MURUGESAN R 28 RAMACHANDRAN V 29 ELANGOVAN S 30 KASINATHAN M 31 SOUNDARARAJAN V 32 RAMASHRAY SINGH 33 DHARMA RAJU S 34 UDAYASANKAR S 35 SATYANARAYANA TVV 36 SATHIYANATHAN D

37 RATHNASAMY M ... PETITIONERs in WP No.23131 of 2018 1 G.SRINIVASAN 2 R.NARAYANAN 3 G.JAYAPANDIAN 4 M.RAVICHANDRAN 5 K.ARUMUGAM 6 N.PONNUSAMY 7 T.V.BALAKRISHNAN 8 M.JEYA PAUL 9 P.R.SUBRAMANIAM.

10 N.SRIKANTHAN 11 GEORGE ALEXANDER 12 S.M.BALAKUMAR 13 M.S.N.VIJAYAMOHAN 14 M.MURUGAIYA 15 M.KANNIAPPAN 16 K.KUMARA SUBRAMANIAM 17 P.RADHAKRISHNAN 18 M.S.HARIHARAN 19 S.PANNEERSELVAM 20 S.JEYARAMAN 21 K.JAYARAMAN 22 S.RAJENDRA PRASAD 23 V.A.S ABDUL RASOOL

24 S.PANDI 25 N.PANDI 26 M.PITCHIAH 27 K.JOTHIKUMAR 28 N.VENKATARAMAN 29 M. RAMAKRISHNAN 30 V.THAMARAI MANAVALAN 31 Y.SARDAR 32 K.MANOHARAN 33 S.JEYACHANDRAN 34 C.SELVARAJ 35 A.DAKSHINAMURTHY 36 J.ETHIRAJULU 37 V.SANKARAN 38 S.SESHAGIRI RAO 39 S.KRISHNAMOORTHY 40 V.MANIVANNAN 41 S.GUNASEKARAN 42 T.MASILAMANI 43 S.GOPALAKRISHNAN 44 P.N.RANGARAJAN 45 A.VELUSAMY 46 V.R.VEERAPPAN 47 M.DHANA SEKAR

48 K.MOHAN 49 D.VASU DEVAN 50 SHRI MANIVENKATESAN 51 V. RADHAKRISHNAN 52 M.V.MUKUNDHAN 53 S.RADHA KRISHNAN 54 C.GANESAN 55 M.VISHNU 56 S.SANKARAN 57 K.MURUGAN 58 PATRICK XAVIER K 59 G.BALU 60 P.N.RAMAMURTHY 61 A.K.GOPINATH 62 C.N.RAVINDRAN 63 E.MARI 64 S.VEERARAGHAVAN 65 K.S.ANANDAKUMAR 66 P.PERUMAL 67 K.KUMAR 68 S.MOHAMED GANI 69 D.DEVA ASIRVATHAM 70 K.RAMASAMY 71 M.V.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN

72 R. VENUGOPAL 73 P. DURAISWAMY 74 K. RAJENDRAN 75 S. RANGARAJAN 76 M. GANAPATHI RAM 77 S. DURAI 78 S. JOSEPH BABU 79 R. JAWAHAR 80 R.RADHAKRISHNAN 81 P.SIVANATHAN 82 K.MURALI ... PETITIONER in WP No.23713 of 2018 1 P.MATHIYAZHAGAN 2 T.PALANICHAMY 3 K.VEDAGIRI 4 S.KALIAPERUMAL 5 P.PANDIAN 6 C.BALACHANDRAN 7 S.PERUMAL 8 K.SANKARA KRISHNAN 9 G.RAMAKRISHNAN 10 N.ZIAUDDIN 11 S.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN 12 P.DEVAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.24661 of 2018

1 M.RAJENDRAN 2 R.DHARMARAJ 3 G.SIVASANKARAN 4 V.PERUMAL ... PETITIONER in WP No.24662 of 2018 1 A.RAJAMANI 2 A.M.THOMAS 3 S.BALASUBRAMANIAN 4 K.KARUMALAI 5 M.RAJENDRAN 6 M.MANOHARAN 7 K.SUBRAMANIAN 8 M.PERIASAMY 9 R.DHANDAPANI 10 K.MUTHUSAMY 11 P.MARUTHAIYAPPAN 12 P.RAJENDRAN 13 S.SELVARAJ 14 T.SRINIVASAN 15 S.ONDIMUTHU 16 T.SELVARAJ 17 K.MURUGAIYAN 18 R.MOHANASUNDARAM 19 MOHAMED ISMAIL 20 N.MURUGESAN

21 V.N.SRINIVASAN 22 R.SRIDHAR 23 C.KRISHNAN 24 R.BODI ... PETITIONERs in WP No.25483 of 2018 1 SIDCO PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (SPWA) REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.V.VASAGAM ... PETITIONER in WP No.29512 of 2018 1 NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION (NTC) PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION REP BY ITS PRESIDENT N.VIJAYAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.4804 of 2018 1 B.ASHOK KUMAR 2 M.RAMANATHAN 3 K.SWAMINATHAN 4 K.MURUGESAN 5 G.GOMATHI 6 S.SANKARAIAH 7 A.PALANICHAMY 8 P.RATHINAVEL 9 K.TAMILSELVAN 10 D.SELVAKUMAR 11 S.KANDASAMY 12 B.PANDIAMMAL 13 S.RAJU 14 L.ARUMUGAM 15 K.PALANICHAMY

16 A.KARAICHAMY 17 C.SIVAKANTHY 18 C.SELVARAJ 19 M.VAITHILINGAM 20 T.BALAN 21 K.SUKUMAR 22 P.CHINNUSAMY 23 C.RUKKUMANI 24 K.BALAMANI 25 A.MALLIGA 26 P.MANICKAM 27 P.KARUPPIAH 28 S.SWAMY JAYASEELAN 29 M.SHANMUGAN 30 K.MANI 31 GR.DURAISAMY 32 A.PONNUSAMY 33 K.KARUNAKARAN 34 R.MANICKAM 35 P.SINGARAVELU 36 N.SETHUPATHY 37 M.VELLANGIRI 38 P.MAHALINGAM 39 K.MADHAYAN

40 S.PACHAMUTHU 41 P.RAMASAMY 42 C.RAMALINGAM 43 S.VISWANATHAN 44 A.MARAN 45 M.NAGARAJAN 46 A.CHINNAPPAN 47 R.SUBRAMANIYAN 48 P.VELLINGIRI 49 P.SUBRAMANIAM 50 G.ANNAMALAI 51 N.RANGARAJAN 52 K.SENDRAYAN 53 M.KALIMUTHU 54 A.MANISEKARAN 55 S.MAKALIAPPAN 56 R.UMADEVI 57 K.BALACHANDRAN 58 R.IYYAAAKANNU 59 V.CHINNARAJU 60 S.JAYAPAL 61 C.MARIAPPAN 62 K.VENUGOPALAN 63 NP.THANGAVELU

64 C.RAJAMOHAN 65 AK.VELUCHAMY 66 K.APPUSAMY 67 S.VEERASAMY 68 M.SANTHANAM 69 K.NAGARAJAN 70 S.RAMAKRISHNAN 71 V.RADHAKRISHNAN 72 VK. LAKSHMANAN 73 K.NAGARAJ 74 M.PONNUSAMY 75 V.CHELLAMUTHU 76 R.NATARAJAN 77 B.SIVASUBRAMANIAN 78 G.HARI 79 P.C. SHANMUGAM 80 V.JAYARAMAN 81 N.JAYABALAN 82 B.AMARESAN 83 T.MUNUSAMY 84 P.MANI 85 K.VENUGOPAL 86 R.MOHANDAS 87 P.GANESAN

88 K.SENNIMALAI 89 RP. MANIVANNAN 90 M.PERUMAL 91 M.PONNUSAMY 92 D.RAJASEKAR 93 C.RADHA KRISHNAN 94 K.PARAMASIVAM 95 M.LAKHSMI 96 T.KRISHNAVENI 97 G.GUNALAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.5405 of 2018 1 V.L.NATHAN 2 A.PARAMANANDAN 3 R.SOMANATHAN 4 V.R.NAVANEETHAN 5 S.HARICHANDRAN 6 C.RAJAN 7 R.PREMSUNDAR 8 S.BAKKIYAM 9 R.PRABAKARAN 10 V.RAMU 11 M.GANGACHALAM 12 V.SAKUNTHALA 13 A.AEETIYAN 14 R.GANESAN

15 SHAIKALLADIN 16 L.RENGANATHAN 17 M.BALASUBRAMANIAN 18 M.KANNIYAMMAL 19 FARITHA BEGAM 20 KATHEEJANACHIYAR 21 S.N.DAKSHINAMURTHY 22 V.VENUGOPAL 23 S.PALANI 24 M.RAJASEKARAN 25 M.MADHAPPAN 26 P.ARUMUGAM 27 M.KRISHNAN 28 A.TAMILSELVAN 29 K.UMAPATHY 30 M.GOPALAN 31 K.RAMAKRISHNAN 32 P.KANDASAMY 33 K.SUBRAMANIAN 34 M.ARIBAL 35 E.SHANMUGAM 36 V.KOTHANDAM 37 M.PAVADAI 38 P.MARI

39 P.SUNDAYEE 40 G.M.MANI 41 P.SKEIK ALLAVUDDIN 42 V.MOORTHY 43 P.MANI 44 R.DEENADAYALAN 45 E.NAGARANI 46 V.MARGANDAN 47 K.MALLIGA 48 M.ARULALAN 49 S.PADMAVATHY 50 V.THERESA 51 V.MAHALINGAM 52 J.NARASIMMAVARMAN 53 P.BALAKRISHNAN 54 K.JOTHIRAM 55 L.SRIRAMAN 56 K.JAYACHANDRAN 57 A.BALAKRISHNAN 58 R.SOUNDARY 59 M.ANNAMALAI 60 S.SEKAR 61 V.THASATATHAN 62 N.GOPINATHAN

63 MK.SRINIVASAN 64 M.DURAISAMY 65 E.MANOGARAN 66 G.THINAKARAN 67 T.WILLIAM JAMES 68 K.NAGESHWARA RAO 69 R.MAHALINGAM 70 G.VENGATACHALAM 71 K.KALAISELVAN 72 S.JAYARAMAN 73 K.RAMAYEE 74 P.SHANMUGAM 75 L.SUBRAMANI 76 A.SHAMEEMA BEGUM 77 R.JAYARAMAN 78 E.DAMODARAN 79 V.C.KRISHNAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.5406 of 2018 1 K.RAMANI 2 G.MAHARAJAKUMAR 3 M.JAFFRULLA 4 N.THANGARAJ 5 K.MALA 6 M.DEIVASIGAMANI 7 S.THANGAPALAM

8 VARKEY JOHN 9 S.ANBU 10 K.PAULRAJ 11 R.MANOHARI 12 G.PONNUSAMY 13 M.NIRMALA 14 L.T.UMAYALVATHI 15 N.VENKATRAMAN 16 C.BAKTHAN 17 K.KESAVAN 18 K.R.PREMCHANDRAN 19 V.MARIAPPAN 20 J.PALANI 21 S.VASUDEVAN 22 J.EBENEZAR 23 M.KAMALA 24 K.ELLAPPAN 25 S.KARUTHAPANDY 26 C.MANI 27 S.MALA 28 G.GOPALAKRISHNAMOORTHY 29 C.JANAKIRAMAN 30 A.RAHMANSHRIF 31 K.RAVINDRANATH

32 V.NEELAMEGAM 33 PA.ZACKIRIAYH 34 N.SELLAPANDIAN 35 K.KARUNANITHY 36 C.ELUMALAI 37 M.VENUGOPAL 38 P.UMAPATHY 39 K.DAYALAN 40 S.NAGARAJAN 41 E.ANBALAGAN 42 R.JAGANATHAN 43 C. PERUMALDOSS 44 C.H. SAMBASIVA RAO 45 D.JAYASINGHMADUKUMAR 46 K.SINGARAM 47 P.GNANAM 48 L.VIMALARAMANI 49 S.JEEVANANDAM 50 G.RAMACHANDRAN 51 G.SELVADURAI 52 M.ANUSUYA 53 M.SEKARBABU 54 R.NATARAJAN 55 C.VENUGOPAL

56 K.BAKKIYALAKSHMI 57 K.SIVAKUMAR 58 S.BALAKRISHNAN 59 V.DURAIVELU 60 C.PAKIRISAMY 61 S.LAKSHMI 62 S.MOHANDOSS 63 R.GOPU 64 D.DASHNAMOORTHY 65 G.DOSS 66 N.DEIVASIGAMANI 67 D.ANJALI DEVI 68 K.RAMACHANDRAN 69 TR.JAYALAKSHMI 70 P.MESHACK 71 R.ETHIRAJ 72 SAYEEDA BADRUNNISA BEGUM 73 A.P.DURAISAMY 74 C.GOWRI 75 P.SHANMUGAM 76 S.GRIJA 77 G.SAMPATH 78 L.CHANDRASEKARAN 79 K.RAHMAN HUSSAIN SAYEED

80 E.MAHALINGAM 81 S.ANANDAN 82 M.SHEELA RAMANI 83 V. ELAVARASI ...PETITIONERs in WP No.5407 of 2018 1 P.N. CHANDRASHEKHAR 2 PRASAD G.N.

3 NAGABHUSHANAM T.R.

4 P.VENKATESAN 5 S.C.SUNDARARAJAN 6 K.LAKSHMIPATHY 7 T.N.SANKARANARAYANAN 8 C.RAMIAH 9 USHA SOMAN 10 RAMANATHAN.S 11 G.B.MURALIDHARAN 12 A.JUSTIN 13 RAMANAN.S 14 M.S.ANTHONY RAJ 15 MURALIDHARAN.S 16 G.PRABHAKARAN SM 17 B.AROCKIARAJ 18 V.A.BALASUBRAMANIAN 19 V.BALASUBRAMANIAN

20 R.SWAMINATHAN DGM(RETD) 21 ARIVANANDAM.R 22 N.RAVICHANDAR 23 N.MOHAN AGM (RETD) 24 LAKSHMIPATHY.K.L.

25 R.KANNAIYAN 26 SANKAR RAMAN.V 27 RAVICHANDRAN.N 28 S.R.GOPINATHA RAO 29 SHANMUGAM.M 30 ARUNACHALAM.P 31 RAJARAMAN.N 32 PALANICHAMY.A 33 V.MANIVASAGAM 34 V.THYAGARAJAN 35 V.SANKARAN SR MANAGER 36 JANAKIRAMAN.C 37 K.SETHUMADHAVA RAO 38 V.PONNUVELSAMY 39 G.JEYAKUMAR 40 G.MOHAN 41 S.BALASUBRAMANIAN 42 N.R.NANDAKUMAR 43 R.RAMACHANDRAN

44 SOUNDARARAJAN.G 45 R.GOPINATH 46 R.PASUPATHY 47 RAMADASS.A 48 A.N.ARUNACHALAM 49 A.K.GANESAN 50 SRINIVASAN.R 51 MADHAVAN.M.C.

52 M.S.SUDERSHAN 53 MYTHILI CHANDRASEKHARAN 54 A.MURUGANANTHAN 55 V.DAMODARAM 56 REVATHY MURALI 57 V.KAMALAKUMAR 58 S.RADHAKRISHNAN 59 R.VENUGOPAL 60 KALYANARAMAN.R 61 LAKSHMINARAYANAN.M.S 62 T.J.VIJAYARAGHAVAN 63 NALINI SUNDER 64 SEETHARAMAN.S.R 65 A.AKBAR KHAN 66 S.SUNDARAKRISHNAN

67 V.SRIKANTHAN 68 SOMASUNDARAM MANI 69 RAMA VENKATESAN 70 V.PARAMESWARAN 71 M.ILANGOVAN 72 R.SARANGARAJAN 73 PILLAI.N.S.N 74 RAMESH.S 75 ASHOK RAMAMURTHI 76 V.VAIDYANATHAN 77 K.SRIDHARAN BALAJI 78 KOTHANDARAMAN.R 79 KAMALA SRINIVASAN 80 SAMPATH KUMAR.S 81 M.N.BABU 82 V.S.MANI 83 LUCIEN PATTIANADANE 84 G.ELIZABETH 85 CHANDRASEKAR.S 86 K.MOHANDASS 87 MANICKAVASAGAM.S 88 T.MUTHU KUMAR 89 RAMADURAI.S.G 90 VISWANATHAN.R

91 A.K.SIVABALAN UNNI 92 E.SWAMINATHAN 93 SRIDHARAN.T.S.

94 JOLLY.V.A.

95 VENUGOPALAN 96 L.MARIA JOSEPH CYRIL.

97 CHANDRASEKARAN.G 98 M.DAKSHINAMOORTHY.

99 S.VAIDYANATHAN 100 BALACHANDRAN B 101 HOMBALI VARADRAJ M.

102 RAVICHANDRAN V.S 103 NATARAJAN S.

104 D.KUPPUSWAMY 105 M.JAYARAMAN 106 R.RAJA GOPAL.

107 SAYEE RAJAN V 108 SRIKUMAR S 109 BALACHANDRAN S 110 V.S.KUMAR 111 K.CHAKRAPANI 112 SINIVASAN R.

113 T.N.PRABHAKARAN 114 L.C.SAMPATH

115 RAJU S 116 S.M.THIAGARAJAN 117 LOHITHAKSHAN T.K 118 V.GNANASEKARAN 119 S.RAJA KUMAR 120 SESHADRI.R SR.MANAGER 121 MEGANATHAN.E 122 V.JAMES 123 R.BADRINARAYANAN 124 V.RAVICHANDRAN 125 V.MURALIDHAR 126 BALAKRISHNAN M.V.

127 PRAKASH M.S.

128 K.VIJAYA RAGHAVAN 129 B.M.UDAYA SHANKAR.

130 P.SEETHARAMAN 131 RAMADASAN.K.P.

132 M.J.RAJAN 133 T.K.ANANDAN.

134 NAGARAJAN.T.

135 R.MAHADEVAN 136 GOVINDARAJAN.S.

137 S.BALASUBRAMANIAN 138 C.SOUNDARARAJAN

139 K.V.KRISHNAN 140 P.KRISHNAMURTHY 141 LOBO.A.

142 P.MANGALESWARAN 143 T.M.RAVICHANDRAN 144 VASUDEVAN.N.S.

145 G.SUKUMAR 146 S.RAVI 147 T.KOTHANDAM 148 C.N.SAMPATH 149 THIAGARAJAN.T.R.

150 VENKATESWARAN.N.S.

151 S.A.SAMUEL 152 S.JOSEPH MARTIN 153 S.BALASUBRAMANIAN 154 VARALAKSHMIY RAMESH.

155 VASAN ISAAC 156 P.B.KOUSALYA.

157 K.P.SEKAR.

158 S.RENGANATHAN 159 G.GOVINDARAJAN.

160 BHARADWAJAN.S.

161 BALACHANDRAN.V.S.

162 K.JANAKIRAMAN

163 RAMACHANDRAN.S.

164 N.LOGANATHAN 165 T.DAMODARAN 166 N.JAYARAMA ATHREYAN 167 VIMALA.K.

168 SUNDARAM PARTHASARATHY 169 S.VENKATRAMANI.

170 C.R.RAVI 171 S.PARTHASARATHY.

172 RAMAN.K.S.

173 E.THIRUVIKKOLAM 174 RAM.V.V.

175 S.SRIDHAR 176 SESHAN.T.V.

177 G.KRISHNAMURTHY 178 S.MEHALINGAM 179 S.MURALI 180 R.MANOHARAN 181 R.VENKATACHALAM 182 BABU.K.

183 S.NAGARAJAN 184 MATHEW A.THANIKAL 185 T.VASUDEVAN.

186 K.R.VENKATARAMAN

187 SHANKAR.K.

188 JANARDHANAN.T.C.

189 PRAMOD BHUSHANAN.T.S.

190 GAFFAR.A.A.

191 S.SRINIVASAGAN 192 MURUGAPPAN.N.

193 THOMAS.T.ABRAHAM 194 K.N.KRISHNAMURTHY 195 P.S.ANANTHARAMAN 196 MAHADEVAN.V.

197 VIJAYARAGHAVAN.C.

198 ASOKKUMAR.K.

199 GANESH PRABHAKAR 200 RAMACHANDRAN.S.

201 N.RAMACHANDRAN.

202 K.A.ANANDAN 203 RAMAKUMAR.M.

204 VASUDEVAN.S.

205 SUNDARARAJAN.M.S.

206 ANNETTE NOEL KENT.

207 SANTHANAM.R.

208 V.PRABHAKAR 209 R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN 210 SADHU CHANDRASEKARAN.

211 JAI RAMAN.R 212 R.SEHAR 213 SESHADRI N 214 N.NANDAKUMAR 215 HARIDOSS.N 216 SUNDARAMOORTHY.S 217 J.KARUNAKARAN 218 V.INGARSAL 219 VISWANATHAN.M.P 220 C.N.SOUNDARARAJAN 221 SUBRAMANIYAN.P 222 V.KALIAPERUMAL 223 A.R.JAYAKUMAR 224 MENON.K.R.G 225 C.B.FRANCIS XAVIER 226 LAKSHMINARASIMHAN.T.S 227 R.NAGESWARAN 228 M.BALASUBRAMANIAN 229 VARADHARAJULU.M 230 S.CHANDRASEKARAN 231 SUBRAMANIAN.A 232 NATARAJAN.S.V 233 G.NATARAJAN 234 R.S.RAJAGOPALAN

235 S.RAJARAMACHANDRAN 236 SHAFI AHAMED SYEED 237 PALANISAMI.A 238 P.H.RAMANI 239 R.PICHUMANI 240 C.M.UDAYAKUMAR 241 S.SAMPATH 242 B.RANGANATHAN 243 ANBARASU.P.S 244 R.CHIDAMBARAM 245 A.RAJAMANICKAM 246 K.SUBRAMANYAM 247 PANDURANGA MURALI BABU.V 248 J.MOHAN 249 P.SOUNDAR RAJAN 250 RAVI.K 251 S.SIVARAMAN 252 GOWRISANKAR.C.V 253 N.JAGANNATHAN 254 V.ARUMUGA NAINAR 255 SOCKALINGAM.S 256 V.RAJAKUMAR 257 C.C.J.CHINNATHAMBI 258 B.V.SHANMUGAM

259 S.GOPALA KRISHNAN 260 LAKSHMIKANTHAN.R 261 S.KANNAN 262 R.VISWANATHAN 263 V.KANNAN SR OFFR 264 A.N.KUPPUSWAMY 265 N.CHANDRASEKARAN 266 A.K.GIRIRAJ 267 R.SHANKAR 268 MOHANRAO PULAGALA 269 LOVESEA MICKY MARKOSE 270 KRISHNA RAJ.V 271 V.RADHAKRISHNAN 272 S.KRISHNAN 273 DEVADOSS.C 274 R.RANGANATHAN 275 C.M.VASANTHARAJ 276 P.VINAYAGAMURTHY 277 SRIDHARAN.V 278 KASILINGAM.V 279 M.SUBRAMANIAN 280 V.JAYARAMAN 281 R.SWAMINATHAN 282 T.V.ANAND

283 SRINIVASAN.M 284 S.SRIDHARAN 285 BADRINARAYANAN.K.S 286 GOPALAKRISHNAN.S 287 DAKSHINAMOORTHY.S 288 V.DANDAPANI 289 D.UMAMAHESWARAN 290 SUKUMAR.C 291 CHANDRAN.V 292 K.S.RAJU 293 RAMADURAI.S 294 P.VENUGOPAL 295 P.SANTHANAM 296 GOPALAKRISHNAN.R 297 MURUGESAN.R 298 SANKARAN.M 299 MENON.N.K 300 M.PRABHAKARAN 301 PARTHASARATHY.P 302 RAMJI NARAYANASWAMY 303 B.NICHOLAS 304 DEVARAJAN.P 305 SAMBANDAM.V.A 306 N.ANANTHAKRISHNAN

307 PASUPATHY.D 308 K.C.BALASUBRAMANIAN 309 VASUDEVAN.C.V 310 SWADHEEN KUMAR PATNAIK 311 SUNDARAM.S 312 GOPALAN.K 313 S.PANEERSELVAM 314 G.RAVICHANDRAN 315 CHANDRASEKAR.T 316 B.KRISHNAKUMAR 317 MOHAN.S 318 V.SRINIVASAN 319 C.NARAYANANKUTTY 320 KESAVAN.R 321 R.SUBRAMANIAN 322 BALAKRISHNAN.B 323 N.JAYARAMAN 324 PRAKASH CHANDRAN.P.M 325 V.MUTHUKUMAR 326 BALASUBRAMANIAN.K.

327 RAMAKRISHNAN.V 328 RAJAN.P 329 K.V.SUBRAMANIAN 330 P.RAMALINGAM

331 S.K.RAMANAN 332 S.VENKATARAMAN 333 V.BASKARAN 334 VENKATAKRISHNAMACHARI 335 RAMACHANDRAN.R 336 RAVEENDRA DAS.T.V 337 JAYASHANKAR.P.B 338 BALAGOPALAN.C 339 CHANDRASEKARAN.K.C 340 S.KRISHNA KUMAR 341 K.P.HARIHARAN 342 RAVEENDRAN.K 343 THANGAMANI.S 344 SHEKHAR ARORA 345 NARAYAN DHONDIBA BHILARE 346 JAYAKAR PADUBIDRI 347 KRISHNAMOORTHY.M.N 348 M.N.AKHILESWARAN 349 UPADYAY.D.C 350 K.BALAN 351 M.BALASUBRAMANIAN 352 ARUNKUMAR.B.DESAI.

353 RAVI SHANKAR GANTI 354 S.SHANMUGAM

355 ABHAY SHRINIWAS DESHPANDE 356 YESHODA SUNDAR KOTIAN 357 PROSENJIT PATHAK 358 INDIRA RAJARAMAN 359 MADHU SUDAN PAUL 360 TAPASH BOSE 361 V.NATARAJAN 362 RUMA SAHA 363 MITALI GHOSH 364 BANERJEE MILAN KANTI 365 BHASKAR SEN 366 ACHINTYA KUMAR MUKHOPADHY 367 SARKAR.B.K 368 JANAKIRAMAN VENKATARAMAN 369 TARUN KUMAR DUTTA 370 LAKSHMANAN.K.A 371 SUBASIS BOSE 372 PRANAB KUMAR MUKHERJEE 373 A.K.MUKHERJEE 374 KUMAR.S 375 VENKATA RAMANAN.K 376 K.NAGESH PRAKASH 377 T.S.LAKSHMAN SUNDER 378 R.KRISHNAN

379 SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA 380 MARUTI NARASINGRAO LADDE 381 PADMANABHAN.K.G.

382 T.G.SAMPATH 383 SURENDRAN.J 384 U.RAJAMANI 385 LAKSHMIPATHY.B 386 SRINIVASAN.A 387 G.S.CHANDRASEKARAN 388 A.SUNDARA MURTHY 389 V.VASUDEVAN 390 DR.G.R.VIJAYKUMAR 391 SURESH.B 392 DWARAKANATH.V 393 MURALIDHARAN.S 394 VENKATARAMANI.N 395 R.NAGARAJA 396 RAMNATH COWSIK 397 PRAKASH.M.V 398 RAMA MUTHUKUMARAN 399 RAJAGOPAL.R 400 PARAMESWARAN.R 401 SURYANARAYANAN.V 402 KRISHNA VENI.N

403 PARTHASARATHY.T.V 404 ABDUL AYUB 405 M.K.R.NAIR 406 P.VIJENDIRAN 407 GOPALAKRISHNAN.N 408 B.S.CHANDRASHEKARAN 409 P.SELVARAJ 410 RAMANAND.M 411 M.A.MOHAMED ALI 412 RAMACHANDRAN.K.N 413 RAMA BALACHANDRAN 414 C.V.JAI RAJ 415 MARIAM MATHEW 416 KRISHNA RAO.B.N 417 N RAGHUTHAMAN 418 SHARMA.T.S.R 419 SURIANARAYANAN.V.N.S 420 S.HARIHARAN 421 MYNUTHEEN.D 422 S.PADMANABHAN 423 L.A.THEERTHAGIRI 424 BALASUBRAMANIAM.R 425 S.MOHANASUNDARAM 426 K.MARIA JOSEPH

427 BALACHANDRAN.A 428 VEERARAGHAVAN.R 429 RAGUNATHAN.M.N 430 MOHANKUMAR.D.S 431 V.RAMADASS 432 G.SOUNDARA RAJAN 433 G.KANNAN 434 P.R.SUBRAMANIAN 435 C.SRINIVASAN 436 M.N.RAMACHANDRAN 437 R.SRINIVASAN 438 M.RAMAMOORTHY 439 DHANAPAL.T 440 RAGHAVAN.V 441 NIRMALA CABAH SUDHAKAR 442 R.KANDASAMI 443 K.S.K.ABDUL HUTHA 444 ANDIAPPAN.P 445 M.N.SHANMUGAM 446 PREMA.M.K 447 D.RAMESH 448 MANOHAR RAJ.E 449 PARANDHAMAN.V 450 VISWANATHAN.C.V

451 B.KHAITAN 452 SARWAN KUMAR 453 RAVINDER SINGH 454 CHACKO.E.J 455 P.S.GULERIA 456 S.VENKAT NARAYANAN 457 SURINDER SINGH KALSI 458 AMBRISH KUMAR SINGH 459 AHMED FAHEEM 460 CHAUDHRY.C.P 461 RAMESH CHANDER KHANNA.

462 MAHESH CHANDRA GAUTAM.

463 KALYAN SINGH SHEKHAWAT 464 DIWAN.N.K.

465 GOKULARAJAN.S.

466 KAN CHAND 467 HAR SWAROOP SHARMA.

468 PRADEEP KUMAR ZUTSHI 469 V.RAMA IYER MANAGER 470 KAMAT TIMMAPPA DAMODAR.

471 AJAYA A.KHANOLKAR 472 GODA RANGAN 473 MOHAN KUMAR 474 RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR.P.G.

475 K.S.J.PANICKER 476 THOMAS.V.A.

477 SETHURAMAN.P.

478 S.SAMBASIVAN 479 K.SRIDHARAN 480 N.P.VISWANATHAN 481 K.SRIDHARAN.

482 L.A.SUNDARAM 483 G.JANARDHANAM 484 J.SUNDARAGANESH 485 S.RAVISHANKAR 486 P.KARTHIKEYAN 487 S.RAVICHANDRAN 488 RAVICHANDAN P.

489 H.V.DAMODARA 490 R.RAGHAVAN 491 N.SRIDHARAN 492 CHANDRASEKARAN N.

493 P.BALASUNDARAM 494 M.BRINDAVANAM 495 T.THANAM 496 VARADHARAJAN V.

497 J.GOPALAN 498 V.K.NARASIMHAN

499 CHELLAPPAN K.V.

500 N.MURALI 501 DHARMALINGAM M.L.

502 V.K.VIJAYAKUMAR UNNI 503 LAKSHMINARAYANAN S.

504 K.PURUSHOTHAMAN 505 KALYANAM G.

506 P.JEYAPAUL 507 G.SHANMUGAM 508 R.BALAKRISHNAN 509 GOPALAKRISHNAN.V.

510 S.EKAMBARAM 511 V.S.USHA 512 ROSAMUND REBELLO.

513 V.SETHURAMAN.

514 C.M.RAMESH 515 RAMAN.R.V.

516 A.STANLEY JONSTONE.

517 S.NATARAJAN 518 B.V.RAMACHARI 519 KOTEESWARAN.S.

520 E.JEYAGOPU 521 C.S.MUTHU SUBRAMANIYAN 522 RAVI KUMAR SAMUEL

523 D.ETHIRAJAN.

524 G.G.MANOHARAN 525 R.M. SRIDHARAN 526 R.BHAVANI SHANKAR 527 G.RADHA 528 N.C. DRIVATSAN 529 M.KUMARAN 530 ANDERSON K.

531 R.VISWANATHAN 532 A.HIRUDAYA RAJ 533 J.V.N. PRABHAKARA RAO 534 SUDHA BADRI 535 A.V.RANGARAJAN 536 M.KALYANAMOHAN 537 ELEANOR PAUL 538 M.G.SADHANANDAN 539 GURUSAMY M.

540 SHIVASWAMY C.K.

541 K.A.KUMAR 542 S.V.BOTHANATHASAIE 543 SUKANYA CHANDRAMOULI 544 G.BASKARAN 545 V.VASUDEV 546 G.NADARAJAN

547 VENKATACHALAM K.

548 B.VISALAKSHMI 549 V.VENKATARAMAN 550 K.S.D.ARUMANIAYAGAM 551 R.BALAJI N.RANGANATHAN 552 G.KALIAPERUMAL 553 V.RAJENDRAN 554 C.N.SUNDARARAMAN 555 J.RADHAKRISHNAN 556 R.P.JAYAVELAN 557 B.DEVASENA 558 A.A.GNANASEKARAN 559 V.NARAYANASWAMY 560 R.KUPPURAJ 561 S.N. ADIKALAM 562 S.GOPAL 563 G.D.GURUNATHA RAO 564 HARIKRISHNAN A.R.

565 K.RAMANATHAN 566 P.MATHAVAN 567 G.KARUNANIDHI 568 K.RAJAMANI 569 B.VENU 570 V.A.VISWANTHAN

571 ANANTHA NARAYANAN T.

572 MOHANAKRISHNAN N.

573 A.MURUGAN 574 ASHOK L.NAIK 575 VINOO MASILAMANI 576 K.SUBRAMANI 577 S.SEKAR 578 N.CHOCKLINGAM 579 B.PALANI 580 A.JEYARAGAVAN 581 R.RAVINDRAN 582 S.SUBRAMANIAN 583 R.GANESAN 584 K.SETHUMADHAVAN 585 N.SRIDHARAN 586 N.SUBRAMANIAM 587 C.R.BHOOPALAN 588 K.B.SANTHANAM 589 E.A.R.SASTRY 590 M.P.I. GNANARAJ 591 SUSHEELA GNANARAJ 592 NIMALAN DAVID 593 JAYANTHINATHAN.M 594 PEJAVER KRISHNAN

595 N.ANAND KUMAR 596 T.S.GANESAN 597 RAJA KUMAR 598 SIVAGURU R 599 RAJU S 600 J.K.MAJUMDAR 601 B.P.NIYOGI ... PETITIONERs in WP No.5562 of 2018 1 KUNHI KANNAN.E.T.

2 THANKATHURAI.C.

3 MOHAMMED RAFI.B.

4 SHAJI.S.N.

5 BALAKRISHNAN.M.

6 NARAYANA.M.

7 MATHEW.P.

8 JOSEPH.S.

9 SAMPATH.M.

10 SUBRAMANIAN.K.

11 KRISHNA REDDY.B.

12 SANKARA KUMAR.N.

13 APPAIAH.R.

14 DEVASIA.V.

15 THIAGARAJAN.M.

16 VENKATESH.H.V.

17 GANDHI BOSE.G.

18 JAYACHANDRAN.V.

19 VEERAN.M.

20 KUMAR NATESAN.S.

21 SAPTHARISHI L.R.

22 LAKSHMINARASIMHAN V.

23 MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM R.

24 RAMACHANARAN S.

25 KUPPUSWAMY NADAR R.

26 MANI R.

27 NATARAJAN M.

28 RAGHAVENDRA KUMAR K.

29 DAMODARAN R.

30 PALANIAPPAN N.

31 MAHIMAI NATHAN A.

32 KRISHNAPPA M.

33 NARENDRA A.

34 BENCYANT A.

35 JAYADEVAN S.

36 NATARAJAN.C.

37 SUNDARAMURTHY.V.

38 SUBRAMANIAN.E.

39 MALLESH.M.

40 HARIRAMAR.A.

41 MANI.E.

42 STEPHEN JEBAKUMAR.K.

43 CHANDRAN.D.

44 SUNDER.R.

45 CHIDAMBARAM.R.

46 ELANGOVAN.S.

47 JAYARAMAN.S.

48 RAJAN BABU.N 49 JAYARAMAN.S 50 KRISHNASAMY.P 51 DEVANANDAM.J 52 RAGHUNATH.K.

53 SELVARAJ.D 54 RAJARAM.S 55 JAYAKUMAR.S.

56 KRISHNAPPA.C.

57 SRIDARAN.R.

58 GOPALAN.V.

59 RAVICHANDRAN.K 60 NARAYANAPPA.Y 61 SAMPATH KUMAR.J.

62 VIVEKANANDAM.C.

63 DESIKAN.G.

64 CHANDRASEKARAN.K.

65 SUNDARARAJAN.M.

66 CHANDRASEKARAN.A.

67 SRINIVASAN.M.N.

68 KUPPUSAMY.M.

69 KANNAN.R.

70 VENKATESAN.S.

71 MATHESAN.A 72 KRISHNAN.R.

73 RAJARAJAN.S.K 74 MUNIVENKATA REDDY.M 75 JOTHIRAMALINGAM.M 76 DAVIS.P.A 77 NARAYANAN.B 78 ELUMALAI.V 79 KOKILAVANAN.K 80 KUPPUSWAMY.S.

81 JAYAPAL.C 82 JAYARAJU.R 83 BALACHANDRAN.R 84 DHANDAPANI.N 85 NAGARAJAN.P 86 JAYARAJ.B 87 UMA SHANKAR.S 88 NALLASAMY.K 89 PUSHPARAJ J

90 JAGADEESAN.S ... PETITIONERs in WP No.5563 of 2018 1 BASKAR S 2 KRISHNAMURTHY PJ 3 MARGABANTHU 4 THIRU KAMAL K 5 KALVIRAYAPILLAI G 6 KANNUSAMY CA 7 RAJU G 8 ALPHONES A 9 MANOHAR K 10 RAMAMOORTHY JP 11 SANKARALINGAM T 12 KASINATHAN V 13 VADIVELU A 14 SETHURAMALINGAM S 15 SACHINDRAN R 16 ELANGOVAN A 17 PITCHIAH E 18 KUMAR RK 19 ANANDAN S 20 SHANMUGASUNDARAM A 21 UDAYAKUMAR T 22 AYYAMUTHU R 23 LAKSHMANAN K

24 JAMUNA B 25 CHANDAR SINGH G 26 VASANTHA TR 27 SUBRAMANIAN K 28 TAMILSELVAM K 29 PARAMESWARI V 30 SUNDAR B 31 NALINI M 32 JEEVANANDAM P 33 KANNAKI C 34 AMUDHA S 35 PUSHKALA D 36 PANDIAN S 37 BANUMATHI R 38 RAJAKUMAR S 39 BALAKRISHNAN S 40 ISAIARASAN DJ 41 GANESA SUNDAR N 42 PAKKIRISWAMY N 43 CHIDAMBARAM P 44 VEERARAGHAVAN R 45 SIVAGNANAM V 46 RAMANI N 47 ARUL L

48 LAKSHMINARAYANAN S 49 CHARLEY WILSON M 50 RAJAMANICKAM VG 51 ABDUL HAMEED C 52 RAJARETHINAM P 53 RANJINI S 54 SENTHAMIL SELVI AS 55 SAROJINI KG 56 MANGAYARKARASI S 57 THENMOZHI N 58 RAGHUKUMAR PM 59 MANICKAM A 60 DINAKARAN SM 61 SYAMALA ILANGO 62 VIJAYAKUMARI VT 63 RAMALINGAM VS 64 BASKAR D 65 VELUSWAMI B 66 KUMARASWAMY Y 67 RAVIRAJ VA 68 CHANDRASEKAR G 69 ASOKAN D 70 TAMILSELVI A 71 SIVAGNANAM M

72 RAJENDRAN BALA SINGH S 73 RADHAKRISHNAN N 74 SIVASUBRAMANIAN V 75 VAIJAYANTHI VT 76 RAMAMURTHY T 77 SETHURAM P 78 VIDHYA A 79 SHIVARAJ KA 80 PADMINI TS 81 KUMAR S 82 SUDHA GANESH 83 ALLI S 84 VALLIAMMAL K 85 AHALYADEVI M 86 ANNAPOORANI A 87 PANCHAPAGESAN K 88 PONNUSWAMY N 89 SUBRAMANIAN KN 90 VELUSWAMY N 91 ABUL KHALAM AZAD S 92 VIJAYAKUMAR R 93 CHANDRABABU P 94 THANGARAJ D 95 VENKATESAN K

96 KATHAMUTHU A 97 CHANDRASEKAR S 98 SUBRAMANIAN A 99 SUBRAMANIAN M 100 RAJARAJAN KGR 101 ALAGUDESIGAN A 102 SWAMY SK 103 DAKSHINAMURTHY K 104 ARUMUGAM A 105 RAMADOSS A 106 CHELLAPPA P 107 NAGARAJAN C 108 GUNASEKARAN S 109 NATARAJAN K 110 VELAYUTHAM A 111 GIRIDHAR H 112 KARTHIYAHINI P 113 RAMACHANDRAN S 114 KANCHANA PL 115 SAHUL HAMEED I 116 PANNEER SELVAM L 117 CHANDRASEKARAN P 118 PANNEERSELVAM A 119 SUBRAMANIAN E

120 KANAGARAJ D 121 KANCHANA R 122 ANANTHAN K 123 KHAJA GAYASUDEEN A 124 N. MATHIVANAN 125 KANNIAPPAN D 126 FEROZ KHAN M 127 KOTHANDAN SS 128 SANKARAN T 129 SETHURAMAN N 130 BASKARAN M 131 SHANMUGAM N 132 SEETHARAMAN K 133 NATARAJAN S 134 CHELLASWAMY R 135 RATHNA BAI P 136 RADHAKRISHNAN E 137 SUNDARAPANDIAN KS 138 GIRIDHARAN RA 139 MURUGESAN A 140 SAMINATHAN S 141 NATARAJAN M 142 ELAVAZHAGAN N 143 THULASIRAMAN M

144 SOMANATHAN M 145 MURUGESAN P 146 MANIVANNAN M 147 JAGADESSWARAN R 148 SOUNDARA RAJAN P 149 KANRAJ G 150 RAJAN BABU S 151 ISMAIL A 152 KRISHNAMOORTHY SS 153 KRISHNAMOORTHY S 154 KUMARAGURU K 155 RAJAMOHAN V 156 KRISHNAN C 157 RAJESWARAN S 158 SYED ABDUL KADER PMM 159 ELANGOVAN S 160 SANKARAMURTHY T 161 SRINIVASAN A 162 GOPAL A 163 VINAYAGAM D 164 KATHIRESALU T 165 MEENAKSHISUNDARAM P 166 THAMIL SELVAN P 167 MARY ARPUTHA KALAISELVI

168 LOGANATHAN P 169 ARUNRAJA T 170 GNANAPRAKASAM TP 171 VIJAYAGOPAL C 172 MANGAI V 173 VENKATABASHYAM N 174 SELVARAJ T 175 THANGAVEL S 176 MOHAMED ZOOBERA A 177 VINAYAGAM MP 178 CHANDRASEKARAN R 179 VENKATARAMAN K 180 SRINIVASAN K 181 RAJESWARI N 182 RADHAKRISHNAN T 183 DEVARAJAN K 184 KALIAPERUMAL G 185 AMBALAVANAN C 186 CHITTIBABU L 187 SUCHITHA R 188 MAHENDRAN R 189 MURALIDHAR S 190 YUVARAJ PT 191 THAIYANAYAKI R

192 SIVAKUMARA SASTRY P 193 MATHIVANAN A 194 SEKAR T 195 PATRIC LAZAR A 196 CHOZHAN VR 197 SAMPATHKUMAR VV 198 VIJAYAKUMAR K 199 MANOHARAN CA 200 THATCHINAMOORTHY K 201 SAROJINI J 202 MUTHAZHAGAN K 203 BOJAN L 204 CHAMUNNI KM 205 MANI K ... PETITIONERs in WP No.7126 of 2018 1 K. SUDARSANAN 2 C SIVARAMAN 3 C. NAGALINGAM 4 K SRINIVASAN 5 SUGANYA RAMADURAI 6 M.K. SHANMUGAM 7 V. AMARNATHAN 8 PADMAVATHI AMARANATHAN 9 E. JAYAPATHY 10 J. AKILA

11 L. BHANUMATHY 12 N. SOWRIRAJAN 13 S.DHANASEKARAN 14 D. SAMANTHAGAMANI 15 P.DEVARAJAN 16 N. MURALIDHARAN 17 PRABHA SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN 18 LAKSHMI JAYAKUMAR 19 K. MADHESU 20 T.V. MOHAMED IQBAL 21 N. SELVARAJ 22 T.R. THAVAPRAKASH 23 B. MANOHAR 24 M. RAJAMANICKAM 25 K. PANNER SELVAM 26 S. GANESAN 27 G. DIVAKARAN 28 N.S. RAVI 29 S. SRIDHARAN 30 S.JAYAGOPAL 31 BABY VARGHESE 32 C. JAYASREE 33 A.VASANTHA 34 R.GANDHI

35 P. PERIYASAMY 36 G. RAMACHANDRAN 37 V. SUDHAKAR 38 V.KANNA 39 B. CHANDRASEKARAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.846 of 2018 1 S.MANOHAR 2 A.VAITHILINGAM 3 P.SOLAIMUTHU 4 G.KASIMANI 5 P.SIVALINGAM 6 S.RAMASAMY 7 A.GOVINDASAMY 8 R.RAMAKRISHNAN 9 R.SUGUMARAN 10 A.JABAMALAI 11 S.NAGARAJAN 12 A.MUTHU 13 P.NARAYANAN 14 V.RAMALINGAM 15 T.JAYAPALAN 16 R.SUBRAMANIYAN 17 T.KALAICHELVANN 18 S.JAYACHANDRAN 19 S.SINNAPPAN

20 M.MATHEW 21 P.THANGARAJ 22 A.VAITHILINGAM 23 S.VENUGOPAL 24 P.PAUL RABIN 25 S.AMBIKAPATHY 26 A.JOSOPH IRUDAYARAJ 27 M.SULTHAN ALLAUDEEN 28 P.MUTHIYAN 29 S.SRINIVASAMURTHI 30 S.SANTHOSH 31 N.K.NAGARAJAN 32 S.NALINI 33 S.SYED RAHAMATHULLAH 34 T.RAMALINGAM 35 R.SIVAKUMAR 36 A.RADHAKRISHNAN 37 A.RAMAMOORTHY 38 A.NATESON BABU 39 T.N. VIJAYAKUMAR 40 V.BALASUNDARAM 41 G.MOHANDOSS 42 P.SHANMUGADURAI 43 D.SURESH CHANDRAN

44 S.RAJU 45 S.VELUCHAMY 46 P. RAJENDRAN 47 S.JEYACHANDRAN 48 K. ARUNAGIRI 49 M.BASKARAN 50 S.ARUL ANANDAM 51 S.ABULKALAM AZAD 52 R.JAYAMANI 53 S.RENGARAJAN 54 A.VENKATARAMAN 55 E.RAMACHANDRAN 56 P.GANAPATHY 57 G.KRISHNAN 58 G.PAULRAJU 59 K.SUBBIAH 60 S.CHOKKAIAH 61 R.KANNAN 62 V.MUTHUKRISHNAN 63 S.VELLADURAI 64 D.SIVASUBRAMANIAN 65 S.RENGARAJAN 66 J.MARIASUSAI 67 L. PARAMASIVAN

68 K.ANDIAPPAN 69 A. VAIDISWARAN 70 V.KUMAR 71 T.KANNAN 72 N.VENKATRAMAN 73 T.JAYAPAUL 74 S.SABHARATHINAM 75 S.MANIVANNAN 76 N. KUPPUSAMY 77 V.NAGARAJAN 78 S.RAMASAMY 79 G.R.N. RATHAA 80 S.GANESAN 81 S.RAMAPRASAD 82 G. HABIBUDEEN SHERIFF 83 V.SHANMUGAM 84 B. RAJARAJAN 85 V.SAMINATHAN 86 B.CHANDRAMOHAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.909 of 2018 1 R.MUTHUSWAMY 2 R.EBENEZER PONRAJ 3 D.RAJARAM 4 K.SAMINATHAN

5 T.GURUSAMI 6 M.RAGHUPATHY 7 V.RENGARAJ 8 A.GEORGE VINCENT 9 G.JAGADEESAN 10 C.KARTHIRESAN 11 S.ARAVINDAN 12 N.SUNDARESAN 13 T.KALYANASUNDARAM 14 A.UMASANKARAN 15 N.SIVAJI 16 V.KRISHNAMURTHI 17 S.SELVARAJU 18 R.GUNASEKARAN 19 D.SELVAN 20 L.INDUMATHY 21 V.SANKARI 22 N.BABU 23 S.T.SHAMIM KHATHOON 24 D.RAMALINGAM 25 J.MARIA JESEPH 26 S.JANAKIRAMAN 27 M.RAVICHANDER 28 K.HARIHARAN

29 M.PANDIAN 30 M.SHANMUGAM 31 S.RAJAKUMARI 32 C.SACRAPANI 33 A.RAMACHANDRAN 34 S.RAJASEKARAN 35 S.VENKATRAJAN 36 V.KAMALAM 37 JAYANTHI MADUBASHKAR 38 S.SHANMUGA SUNDARAM 39 K.RADHAKRISHNAN 40 V.GOPALAKRISHNAN 41 Y.S.GIRIJA 42 S.JAYARAMAN 43 V.SRINIVASAN 44 K.SELVARAJU 45 K. SASIKALA 46 P. RAMU 47 S.JAYAKUMAR 48 R. MUTHAMILSELVAM 49 S. KRISHAMOORTHY 50 A. SIVASUBRAMANIAN 51 S.SIVAPRAKASAM 52 P. KARUNAGARAN

53 S.GNANASAMBANDAM 54 J. KRISHNAPILLAI 55 N. CHELLAYAN 56 S.LAKSHMANASAMY 57 J. SANKAR 58 P. VIJAYALAKSHMI 59 D.GOWTHAMAN 60 K. VEERAPANDIAN 61 T.RAJENDIRAN 62 S.RAVIKUMAR 63 R.PRINCE EDWARD 64 N. DHANAM 65 A.NATARAJAN 66 P. MANIMOZHI 67 MD. IKRAMULLAH 68 V.R.VENKITACHALAM 69 N. VELLAISWAMY 70 G.MURUGAN 71 P. SELVAKUMAR 72 D.BALSUNDARAM 73 V.RAMAMURTHI 74 P. DHESINGH 75 R.SAKTHIVEL 76 M.MAHALINGAM

77 R.RADHAKRISHNAN 78 P.KANDASAMY 79 P. POUNRAJ 80 T.RAMACHANDRAN 81 S.BASKARAN 82 M.BALRAJU 83 K.GENGARAJ 84 C.RATHINAM 85 M. KAMALAVALLI 86 S. STANLEY THAMBIRAJ 87 P. THANGARAJ ... PETITIONERs in WP No.910 of 2018 1 V.KRISHNASWAMY T. KRISHNAMOORTHY

3. K.RAJENDRAN N. JAYAPAL A.PULLAIAH K. KARUPPAIYAN C. VELLAMUTHI V. DHARMALINGAM G.V. SEGAR

10. T. KUMARAVEL K.T. NATARAJAN D. ARAUGATHAI P. DHANAPAL

M.MANI B. SRINIVASAN M. THANGARAJU N. SIVAGNANAM P. MARUTHAPILLA R. DUARIRAJ

20. K. ELANGOVAN

21. P.MARIAALPHONSE R.MOHAN S.MANI

24. E.RAJU

25. A. SELLAMUTHU R. GOVINDARAJAN K.M.PONJAISANKAR K. NATARAJAN K. MURUGESAPANDIA K. SUBRAMANIAN T. GUNASEKAR V. AYYAMPERUMAL A. SRINIVASAN P. GANESA BOOPATHI P. PERIYASAMY D. ANANDRAJ

37. P. SHANMUGAM

38.

M.K. SHANMUGAM A. RAJAGOPAL N. TAMILVANAN C. MOHANRAJ T. SANTHANAM K. ARUNCHONAN S. SANKARAPANDIAN D. CHANDRASEKAR A. NALLASELVAN E. DHANAPAL M. JAYANATHAN G. MANI S. SELVARAJ T. DURAISAMY T. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM G. KANDASAMY

54. N. DAMODARAN N. KRISHNAN P. CHINNASAMY D. THIYAGARAJAN C.A. PAUL DHANARAJ A. UDAYAKUMAR R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN A. ARUMAIRAJ

S. VIJAYARAJAN K. KARUPPIAH K.S. KRISHNASAMY T. PARTHASARATHY A. MALAICHAMY S. KALIMUTHU R. MUTHAIYAN S. KULASEKARAN K. ILANGOVAN N. SAMPATH T. SUNDARAM M. JAYAPERUMAL R. SRINIVASAN V. CHURULI K. APPAVOO S.P. RAMANATHAN S. THIRUNAVUKKARASU M. ADAIKKAPPAN M. MARIMUTHU

81. A. PONNUSWAMY R. MUTHUMAHALINGAM

83. U. KASTHURI

84. K. JAGANATHAN M. JEYAPANDIAN

M. RADHAKRISHNAN R. EZHILSELVI R. SREEDHARAN R. KANNAN ..PETITIONERs in W.P.22343 of 2018.

1 LMW PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSO REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT V.VELUCHAMY ... PETITIONER in WP No.30681 of 2018 1 D.SELVARAJ ... PETITIONER in WP No.30684 of 2018 1 K.SIVANANDAN ... PETITIONER in WP No.30688 of 2018 1 N.THULASIDAS 2 T.P.KESAVANUNNI 3 K.NAGARAJAN 4 S.MOHANAKUMAR 5 R.MUTHUSAMY 6 C.KANNAKUTTY 7 K.V.AMBUJAKSHAN 8 D.VENUGOPAL 9 C.VENUGOPALAN 10 R.VELUSAMY 11 A.PATRIC PAUL 12 R.RADHAKRISHNAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.31347 of 2018 1 K.MAHADEVAN 2 K.PONNUSAMY 3 S. VENKATACHALAM

4 V.MAILVAHANAM 5 UDAYA KUMAR 6 SH.ABDUL RAZACK 7 M.RAJASEKARAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.31358 of 2018 1 D.MOHAN RAJ 2 M.SELVARAJ 3 M.S.SUBRAMANIAN 4 N.SRIDHARAN 5 B.RANJAN 6 V.SUDARSAN 7 R.ANGAIARKANNI 8 R.SUMATHY 9 V.ARULNATHAN 10 P.GOVINDAN 11 A.SAMIYULLAH SHERIFF 12 S.MANOHARAN 13 P.SUBBIAH 14 R.KOTHANDAN 15 A.THANKARAJ 16 B.BASKARAN 17 P.KANAGASABAPATHY 18 K.C.RANJITH 19 K.GOPALAKRISHNAM 20 P.GOPI

21 N.SIVA 22 D.RAJESWARI 23 G.PAYANI 24 V.RAJESWARI 25 S.PETER GEMONIE 26 P.NARAYANAN 27 V.CHANDRALEKHA 28 R.GANESAN 29 D.S.LIAQUATH ALI KHAN 30 RITA RANI 31 C.KUMAR 32 P.RAJENDRAN 33 V.RAMALINGAM 34 V.SIVANANDAM 35 A.BOOPALAN 36 R.SANTHANALAKSHMI 37 D.ARULPRAGASAM 38 S.MUTHUSWAMY 39 K.ADIKESAVALU 40 E.SELVAMANI 41 S.VENU 42 N.GOWRI 43 B.SEKARAN 44 DEENADAYALAN

45 P.PALANISAMY 46 VIJAYABASKAR 47 M.SREERAMULU 48 Y.K.USHA 49 C.PANNEERSELVAM 50 RAJENDRAN 51 K.R.VASANTHI 52 R.JAYACHANDRA BABU 53 K.SWARNALATHA 54 I.ANNIE LOURDES 55 M.V.MOORTHY 56 V.ARUMUGAM 57 K.RAMA 58 A.KAMALAKANNAN 59 D.MADIVANAN 60 T.SIVAPRAGASAM 61 N.KRISHNAMURTHY 62 M.ANBALAGAN 63 V.KRISHNAN 64 P.THIRUNAVUKKARASU 65 ANURADHA 66 K.PANDURANGAN 67 VIJAYALAKSHMI 68 D.RAMAMOHAN RAO

69 J.V.R.K.SHARMA 70 VEERAIAH 71 RAKESH RAJ SHARMA 72 G.JAYASEELAN 73 K.ANANDA KUMAR 74 BISWANATH MITRA 75 M.DEVASAGAYAM 76 K.PALANICHAMY 77 P.B.R.SRINIVASAN 78 PARANTHAMAN 79 T.THIYAGARAJAN 80 S.LOUIS GEMONIE 81 S.A.THIYAGARAJ 82 P.R.GEETHA 83 M.KRISHNAN 84 M.N.NAGAPPAN 85 K.P.KAMALAKARAN 86 NSIC RETIRED EMPLOYEES WELFA RE ASSOCIATION REP BY ITS PRESIDENT ... PETITIONERs in WP No.2429 of 2019 1 K.TEEKACHAR 2 S.SANKARI 3 G.INDUMATHY 4 R.BALASUNDARAM 5 N.SAMPATHKUMAR

6 K.L.BALASUBRAMANIAN 7 G.RAGHU 8 V.RENGANATHAN 9 C.VENKATA SWAMY 10 G.GOPALAKRISHNAN 11 G.HAIRDOSS 12 M.L.PRAKASHA 13 NSIC RETIRED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION REP BY ITS PRESIDENT ... PETITIONERs in WP No.2433 of 2019 1 RATHNAKUMAR K.V 2 PASUVALINGAM.K.

3 VEERASAMY 4 KRISHNAN.T 5 PANNEERSELVAM.N 6 RENGASAMY.V 7 KARUPPUSAMY.P 8 ARCHUNAN.M 9 RAMANUJAM.V 10 JAFFAR HUSSAIN.G 11 JAGANNATHAN.S 12 MUTHUSAMY.S 13 MURUGASAMY.R 14 BALAKRISHNAN.S 15 KALIYAMOORTHY.R

16 MARIMUTHU.D.P.

17 MOHIDEEN BATCHA.S 18 SRIDHARAN.R 19 PALANISAMY.S 20 NATESAN.P 21 MADHAIYAN.K 22 SELVARAJU.A 23 KUMARESAN.S 24 VENKATARAMAN.J 25 KARUPPANAN.G 26 PATTAN.V 27 MYLWAGANAN.A 28 CHANDRASEKARAN.P 29 MUNIAPPAN.S 30 PALANISAMY.A 31 CHIDAMBARAM.S.P 32 MEIGNANAMURTHY.C 33 KATHIRVELU.M 34 SUBBAIYAN.P 35 THANGARAJU.K 36 SELVARAJ.P 37 RAMALINGAM.M 38 KANDASAMY.A 39 SEKARAN.C

40 BALAN.C 41 VEERAMANI .V 42 CHANDRASEKARAN.V.V 43 RENGASAMY.P 44 PONNUSAMY.G 45 SRINIVASAN.K 46 NATESAN.R 47 VENUGOPAL.N 48 SELLAPERUMAL.A 49 SHANMUGAM.K 50 CHINNASAMY.P 51 THANGARAJ.K 52 SINGARAN.M 53 MOHANAKRISHNAN.G 54 DHANASEKARAN.B 55 KUNJAPPAN.K 56 GUNASEKARAN.R 57 NAGARAJAN.K 58 KRISHNAMURTHI.R 59 ANNADURAI.V 60 SOUNDARARAJAN.S 61 VADIVELU.K.S.

62 SATYANARAYANA.T 63 K.ALGESAN

64 R.UTHIRAPATHY 65 MATHIYALAGAN.M.P.

66 SUNDARARAJAN.R 67 KALIYAPERUMAL.D 68 JAYARAMAN.R 69 K.NATARAJAN 70 SINGARAVELU.K.S.

71 SIVARAMAN.G 72 MURTHY RAJ.V 73 JEEVANANDAM.K.

74 VETHASIROMONY.C 75 KALAISELVAN.T 76 NAVANEETHAN.P 77 SADASIVAM.B 78 KITTAPPA.V 79 ANANDAN.N 80 RAMASAMY.M 81 KRISHNAMOORTHY.M 82 THANGAVEL.S 83 SUBBARAYAN.R 84 K.PITCHAIMUTHU 85 SEETHARAMAN.C 86 MANI.C 87 RAJENDRAN.P

88 YESUNATHAR.M 89 PERIASWAMY.R 90 KUMAR .P 91 SEERANGAN.P.

92 SUNDARARAJ .A.

93 SUBBAIYAN .R 94 SHANMUGAM .K.

95 VENKATESAN T.R.

96 SRINIVASAN .A.

97 ELUMALAI .R 98 ARUMUGAM .P.

99 PALANISAMY .V 100 RAMALINGAM .M 101 RAMASAMY M.

102 K.P.DURAISAMY 103 R. SEETHARAMAN 104 M.M.PALANISAMY 105 R.GOPALAN 106 K.PONNAMBALAM 107 A.KRISHNASWAMY 108 MATHESWRAN .M 109 P.GNANARAJ 110 K.RAGAVAN 111 SHAIK. ABDUL RASOOL

112 V.SELVARAJ 113 P.ARUNACHALAM 114 S.MATHIYALAGAN 115 K.P.PRAKASAM 116 K.MUNIYANDI 117 S.BALAN 118 G.VEERASAMY 119 M.KARUPPAIYAN 120 N.VISWANATHAN 121 C.P.VENAYAGEM 122 R.SELVARAJU 123 K.C.RAMASAMY 124 P.MOHAN 125 A.RAMASAMY 126 K.PALANISAMY 127 K.M.PALANISAMY 128 R.M.KUMAR 129 V.MOHAN 130 CH.SRIMURTHI 131 CH SREE RAMA RISHY 132 K.MOHAN 133 MUTHUSAMY .K.

134 V.P.RAJU 135 P. RASAPPAN

136 S. THANGARAJ.

137 P. SRINIVASAN 138 M. KOTTAICHAMI 139 K. KRISHNAMOORTHY 140 NALLAPPAN.M 141 G. VENKATACHALAM 142 S. SAMSAHAYAM JAYAKUMAR 143 N. MURALI 144 R. PAPPUDURAI 145 V. MASANAM 146 V. PAUL RAMASUBBU 147 S. NAZEER 148 M. MANI 149 SUBRAMANIAN K 150 G. NARAYANASAMY 151 A. PANNEERSELVAM 152 A.K. PITCHAI 153 P GANESAN 154 R. PANDIARAJAN 155 G.S VENKATESAN 156 V. GOVINDASAMY 157 M. CHINNAPPA RAJU 158 K. GOPALAN 159 T. ARUMUGAM

160 K. TAMILARASAN 161 M. GANESAN 162 K.N. PALANISAMY 163 A. THIYAGARAJAN 164 M. PERIASAMY 165 K.UDHAYAKUMAR 166 R. RAMAN 167 G. THOMAS 168 C. RAJENDRAN 169 S. KASHTHURI 170 U. ANTHONISAMY 171 P. SOLOMON 172 M.S. GOPAL 173 K. RATHINAM 174 S. GNANAMANI 175 DEVADOS 176 E. SAMBASIVAN 177 R. KALIAYAPERUMAL 178 S. MAHIZHMARAN 179 D.SESHACHALAM 180 T.R.KARTHIKEYAN 181 P.CHANDRASEKAR 182 J.MUTHU VENGADAPATHY 183 M.ZAFFAR ALI KHAN

184 V.KANAKARAJ 185 K.SIVAGURUNATHAN 186 G.RATHINA SABABATHI 187 A.PALANIAPPAN 188 K.MEGANATHAN 189 K.R.POONAMBALAM 190 R.MANICKAM 191 C.S.SWAMINATHAN 192 R.NALLASAMY 193 P.PERIYANNAN 194 R.PALANI 195 V.MURUGAN 196 M.GUNASEKARAN 197 S.KANDASAMY 198 Y.SREENIVASULU 199 A.MULLAINATHAN 200 R.MATHI 201 C.D.VENKATESAN 202 A.PRABAKARAN 203 S.K.MAJUNU 204 B.FAIYAZ KHAN 205 P.A.MOLIE YAZHAGAUR RAJ 206 S.SOUNDARARAJAN 207 K.CHANDRASEKARAN

208 V.SHREE RAMAMURTHY 209 P.KANAGARAJ 210 P.KRISHNAN 211 R.GOPALAKRISHNAN 212 M.CHINNIAH 213 P.SENGOTTIAYAN 214 K.POOMALAI 215 R.GURUSAMY 216 J.CHANDRAMOHAN 217 P.SHANMUGAM 218 A.SHANMUGAM 219 K.DHARAMALINGAM 220 N.RAJU 221 V.GANESAN 222 S.PONNUSAMY 223 P. MANOHARAN 224 S. MUTHUKUMARASAMY 225 N. KRISHNAN 226 G. MUTHUSAMY 227 K. KARUNANITHI 228 M. DHAMODARAN 229 M. VIVEKANANDAN 230 K. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM 231 THOMAS A CHAKO

232 N. SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO 233 K. PREMKUMAR 234 E.KRISHNASWAMY.

235 A. MAHALINGAM 236 S.R. PALANISAMY 237 S. SEKAR 238 S. NARAYANAN 239 M. CHINNATHAMBI 240 R. KANDASAMY 241 N. PUSHKARAN 242 D. DHARMALINGAM 243 A. RAMASAMY 244 R. BALAKRISHNAN 245 P. ARUMUGAM 246 E. SUNKANNA 247 M. CHINNAPPAN 248 R. VISHWANATHAN 249 S. SANTHANAKRISHNAN 250 R. KRISHNAMOORTHY 251 VEERAN.M.

252 RAMALINGAM.N 253 ANNADURAI.R 254 SELVARAJ.P 255 MANOHARAN.M

256 DURAISAMY.L 257 SENGODAN.M 258 VENGIDUSAMY.N 259 KESAVAN.C 260 MANOHARAN.K 261 ANNAMALAI.K 262 PANNEER SELVAM.C.S 263 GOVINDARAJU.T 264 CHANDRASEKARAN.S 265 AZHAGAR.N.

... PETITIONERs in WP No.4308 of 2019 1 R.GOVINDARAJ 2 N.P.PRABHAKARAN 3 P.KUMAR 4 A.RANGANATHAN 5 M.SHANMUGAM 6 R.SUBRAMANIAN 7 C.SAROJA 8 N.BHADRAPPAN 9 R.VEERAN 10 K.RANGASAMY 11 V.RAMU 12 P.SELVARAJ 13 P.PALANISAMY 14 P.KUPPUSWAMY

15 M.THIRUMOORTHY 16 K.VELLINGIRI 17 P.SUBRAMANIAN 18 S.AGASTHIYA GURUMURTHY 19 K.A.HAMJA HUSSAIN 20 RAJAN THOMAS 21 K.SIVASANKARAN 22 H.ABDUL MAJEETH 23 V.GIREESAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.4436 of 2019 1 GENERAL SECRETARY THALEMA PODU THOLILAR SANGAM 5/243 JAGIR AMMAPALAYAM NEAR MGR STATUE SALEM- 636005 ... PETITIONER in WP No.5315 of 2019 1 S.JAYARAJ 2 K.M.ESAKKIAPPAN 3 N.GOMATHY 4 P.NALLATHAMBI 5 R.NACHIAPPAN 6 S.MANIAN 7 P.SRINIVASAN 8 R.SHANMUGAM 9 A.SAKUNTHALA 10 S.SARASWATHY 11 A.RAJENDRAN 12 P.SELVAMANI

13 G.INDRANI 14 P.THANGAVEL 15 D.RAMACHANDRAN 16 C.PAPANNA 17 M.GOVINDARAJU 18 R.HARIHARASUBRAMANIAN 19 P.GUNASEKARAN 20 N.NAGARAJAN 21 K.KRISHNAVENI 22 S.MALAYAMMAL 23 T.DURAIMANICKAM 24 Y.JUSTIN DEVADAS 25 P.KARUNAKARAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.6289 of 2019 1 V.DURAI SUBRAMANIAN 2 R.PERIYASAMY 3 G.KARUNAKARAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.6296 of 2019 1 R.RAGHUPATHY 2 S.M.ARUMUGAM 3 P.MANIVEL 4 S.KARUPPIAH 5 R.GANESAN 6 G.SESHAYEE 7 K.RAMASAMY 8 S.PERIYASAMY

9 L.PALANIVEL 10 K.DURAISAMY 11 P.MUTHUSAMY 12 C.ANNAMALAI 13 K.RAJENDRAN 14 A.MUTHUSAMY 15 N.VENKATESAN 16 N.JAMBULINGAM 17 M.THANGARAJ 18 P.MOHANASUNDARAM 19 P.RAVICHANDRAN 20 P.MUTHUSAMY 21 S.VEERAPANDIAN 22 P.RAJARAM 23 S.RAVI 24 D.UDAYAKUMAR 25 J.MADHAVAN 26 V.SUBRAMANIYAN 27 P.MURALEETHARAN ... PETITIONERs in WP No.6902 of 2019 1 BPCL PENSIONERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT ... PETITIONER in WP No.26234 of 2017 1 O.N.G.C. OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (OOA) REP. BY ITS WORKING PRESIDENT ... PETITIONER in WP No.32879 of 2017 1 G.MURUGAIYAN

2 RR VISWANATHAN 3 T.SUBRAMAIAN 4 D.V. SRIDHARAN 5 M.SRIDHAR 6 V. JAYAPAL 7 KAREEMULLA KHAN 8 K.C. PASUPATHY 9 L. VELAYUDHAM 10 V. SWAMINATHAN 11 T. ARULDASS 12 G. ASOKAN 13 S. DEVARAJ 14 K. KRIBANANDAM 15 A. VENKATESAN 16 M. ANTHURAJ 17 R. SAMPATHKUMAR 18 V. NAGARAJAN 19 R. SHANTHA 20 R. RAMACHANDRAN 21 RAJARAM RAMESH 22 L. RAMALINGAM 23 C. ARUMUGAM 24 RUSSELL J LOWE 25 D. PRABHAKARAN

26 K. PICHAMUTHU 27 T. CHANDRAN 28 R. THANGARAJ 29 P. MUNUSWAMY 30 V.E. GEORGE ROYAL 31 J. SUBRAMANIAN 32 M ARUMUGHAM 33 MD. HUSSAIN MOULANA 34 A. THILAKAR 35 K. RENGARAJ 36 R. PONNURAJ 37 B.GRIJABAI 38 M. TEEKARAMAN 39 G. MOHANRAJ 40 S.VENKATESAN 41 G.KRISHNAN 42 N. JAYABALAN 43 T. PAKKIRISAMY 44 P.JAYA 45 K. ANANDAN 46 J. ALEXANDER 47 P. MAGIMAINATHAN 48 P.MANJAPPAN 49 K.KANDHI

50 B.THANIKESAN 51 S.DEVANBU 52 S.SUBRAMANIAM 53 R.S.AGORAM 54 R.SRIDHARAN 55 G.KANNAN 56 E.ETTIYAN 57 K.RAGHU 58 S.MURUGAN 59 V.MARGABANDU 60 B.MASTHAN 61 C.CHINNA RAJ 62 A.R.AMEERKHAN 63 R.CHANDRAN 64 A.SIRAJUDEEN 65 V. MOORTHY 66 T.M. MANICKAM 67 ARASAN BALAKRISHNAN 68 K.CHELLAN 69 R.PASUPATHY 70 R.ARIVANANDAM ... PETITIONERs in WP No.33605 of 2017 1 B.V. DURGAPRASAD 2 P. SRIRAMULU 3 C.RAJALINGAM

4 R.S.CHOKKANATHAN 5 R.K.MUNIRATHINAM 6 G.ASAITHAMBI 7 P.SIVARAJ 8 E.V.NAGABUSHANAM 9 A.RAMADASS 10 G.RUCKMANGATHAN 11 G. GUNATIVIYA 12 B.PITCHAIMUTHU 13 N. GOPALAKRISHNAN 14 R.SRIDHAR 15 M. SELVAM 16 M.KANNADASAN 17 D.MURTHY 18 P.DHANAPAL 19 K.KRISHNASWAMY 20 G.SUGUNADEVI NATARAJAN 21 I.SHUNMUGAM 22 A.CHANDRAN 23 G.MAIYALAGAN 24 M.MUNUSWAMY 25 M.KRISHNAN 26 M. SAMPATH 27 D.ANANDAN

28 B. DHANAPAL 29 I.SELVAM 30 G.RAJU 31 S.DHAKSHINAMURHY 32 M.K.MOHAMED RAFIC 33 P.SIVARAMA SUBRAMANIAN 34 J.JAYAKUMAR 35 A.V.ARJUNAN 36 K. VEERASWAMY 37 P. BALAKRISHNAN 38 M KANNAN 39 K. GURUNATHAN 40 D. JAGANATHAN 41 A.NARAYANAN 42 B.J. VIDYASAGAR 43 A.KESAVAN 44 A.S. CHANDRASEKAR 45 S. MURTHY 46 S. PANDURANGAN 47 JEYAPRADHA 48 D.VASUDEVAN 49 B. SRINIVASAN 50 D. SELVARAJ 51 B. DHANANJALIAN

52 C. ANBUSELVAN 53 G. PURUSHOTHAMAN 54 R. KRISHNAMURTHY 55 S. CHANDRASEKARAN 56 C.S. KUMAR 57 K. GURUVAIAH 58 I. SELVARAJ 59 E. BABUJI 60 N. MANOHARARAN 61 K. VASUDEVAN 62 K. YESUPATHAM 63 K. JEYAKUMAR 64 K.V. MAITHREYIE 65 K. SANKARANARAYANAN 66 L. RAJENDRAN 67 R. RETHINAM 68 R. KRISHNASAMY ... PETITIONERs in WP No.33606 of 2017 1 V.VIJAYAKUMAR 2 A.K. VIJAYARAGAVAN 3 H. V. SREEKANDASWAMY 4 A.SUKUMAR 5 R. SESHADRI 6 A. R. VARADARAJAN 7 S. NESAMONY

8 K. SANKARANARAYANAN 9 M. PEETHAMBARAM 10 G. SRIDHARAN 11 R. MOHANASUNDARAM 12 T. GUNASEKARAN 13 M. MURUGESAN 14 S. PARAMANANDAN 15 Y. RAMA RAO 16 P. GOVINDARAJ 17 A.ELUMALAI 18 A.CHELLAMUTHU 19 G. NATARAJAN 20 G. GOVINDARAJAN 21 R. SAYEE 22 K. PANDURANGAN 23 A.KANNIAYAN 24 M. SEKAR 25 A.PANNEERSELVAM 26 V. VENKATESAN 27 A.KASINATHAN 28 SARASA PARAMASIVAM 29 P. PALANIVEL 30 C. MUNUSAMY 31 P. BALAKRISHNAN

32 K. GNANASEKARAN 33 V. SUNDARAMURTHY 34 P. THAMBIDURAI 35 S. A. MANICKAM 36 K. RAJA 37 R. SUNDARAM 38 C. SUBRAMANI 39 R. SUKUMAR 40 V. M. VENKATAKRISHNAN 41 S. RAJASEKAR 42 S. SUBRAMANIAN 43 G. SUKUMAR 44 G. POONGAVANAM 45 E. JAYARAMAN 46 V. KANNIYAPPAN 47 P. VIJAYAKUMAR 48 K. MALLAYAN 49 S. NAYAGAM 50 N. MOHAN 51 P. SEETHARAMAN 52 S.JAYAVEERAPANDIAN 53 K.KALIAPERUMAL 54 N.ANBALAGAN 55 R.SELVARAJ

56 P.SUBRAMANIYAN 57 S.KRISHNAMOORTHY 58 P.KAMALA 59 G.PUSHPAVALLI 60 P.RAMAIYAN 61 P.RAJESWARY 62 M.RAJAGOPAL 63 B.RAMALINGAM 64 P. MOORTHY 65 B. CHELLAMMAL 66 KAMAKSHI A.S.

67 G.ANNAMALAI ... PETITIONERs in WP No.33607 of 2017 1 INDIAN OIL RETD. OFFR.WELFARE ASSON.(SR) CHENNAI ... PETITIONER in WP No.34331 of 2017 Vs.

1 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT NEW DELHI 110 001 ...R1 in W.P. 14368, 10051, 10274, 10413 to 10415, 11609, 14145, 14189, 14736, 16229, 17170, 20458 to 20464, 22403, 23713, 24661 & 24662, 25483, 29512, 5405 to 5407, 5562 & 5563, 23131, 7126, 846, 909, 910, 22343, 30681, 30684, 30688, 31347, 31358/2018, 2429 & 2433/2019, 4308 & 4436/2019, 6902/2019, 26234/2017, 32879/2017, 33605/2017 to 33607/2017 & 34331/2017.

2 REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER I (PENSION ) BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 14 BHIKANJI CAMA PALACE NEW DELHI 110 066 ..R1 in W.P.13308/2018 ..R2 in W.P.14368, 10051, 10274, 14189, 14736, 16229, 30681, 30684, 30688, 26234 /2017 & 32879/2017.

..R3 ..R4 in W.P.10413 to 10415, 11609 to 11612, 14145, 17170, 20458 to 20464, 22403, 23713, 24661 & 24662, 25483, 29512, 5405 to 5407, 23131, 7126, 846, 909, 910, 22343, 31358/2018, 2429 & 2433/2019, 4308/2019, 6289, 6296/2019, 6902/2019, 33605 to 33607/2019.

3 ADDL. CENTRAL PF COMMISSIONER HQ (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 14 BHIKANJI CAMA PALACE NEW DELHI 110 066 ..R1 in W.P.5315/2019 ..R2 in W.P.31347, 4436/2018, 6289 & 6296/2019.

..R3 in W.P.14368, 10051, 10274, 10413 to 10415, 11609 to 11612, 14145, 14189,14736, 16229, 17170, 20458 to 20464, 22403, 23713, 24661 & 24662, 25483, 29512, 5405 to 5407, 23131, 7126, 846, 909, 910, 22343, 31358/2018, 2429 & 2433/2019, 4308/2019, 6902/2019, 26234/2017 & 32879/2017, 33605 to 33607/2017.

4 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER , EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION , EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (EPFO) CHENNAI 14.

..R1, R2, R3 in W.P.5562, 5563/2018 ..R4 in W.P.14368, 10051, 10274,14189, 14736, 16229, 26234/2017.

..R5 in W.P.23431/2018.

..R6 in W.P.10413 to 10415, 11609, 20458 to 20464, 23713, 24661 & 24662, 5405 to 5407, 7126, 846, 909, 910, 22343, 6902/2019, 33605 to 33607/2017.

5. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION MINISTRY OF LABOUR LAW AND EMPLOYMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BAWAN NO.14 BHIKANJI CAMA PALACE NEW DELHI-110 066.

..R1 in W.P. 4804, 6289 & 6296/2019.

..R2 in W.P.10413 to 10415, 11609 to 11612, 14145, 17170, 20458 to 20464, 22403, 23713, 24661 & 24662, 25483, 29512, 5405 to 5407, 23131, 7126, 846, 909,910, 22343, 31358/2018, 2429 & 2433/2019, 4308/2019, 6902/2019, 33605 to 33607/2017, 34331/2017.

6. ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION 37,ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI 14.

..R5 in W.P.Nos. 10413 to 10415, 11609 to 11612, 14145, 17170, 20458 to 20464, 22403, 23713, 25483, 29512, 5405 to 5407, 7126, 846, 909, 910, 22343, 31358, 4308/2019, 6902/2019, 32879/2017, 33605 to 33607/2017 5 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (EPFO) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE R 40 A TNHB OFFICE COMPLEX MUGAPPAIR ROAD MUGAPPAIR (EAST) CHENNAI 37 ..R5 in W.P.14368/2018 6 OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORP LTD (ONGC) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MD ONGC PANDIT DEENDAYAL UPADHYAYA URJA BHAVA NELSON MANDELA MARG VASANT KUNJ 110 070 ..R6 in W.P.14368/2018 7 ONGC LTD EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SHED NO. 21 TEL BHAWAN ONGC DEHRADUN 248 003 ..R7 in W.P.14368/2018

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMR O/O.THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN NGO B COLONY THIRUNELVELI-627 007 TN.

..R5 in W.P.10051/2018, 10274, 14189 & 16229/2018.

SECRETARY M/S.SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPON. LTD. (SPIC) 88 MOUNT ROAD GUINDY CHENNAI600 032. ..R6 in W.P.10051/2018, 10274,14189 & 16229/2018 CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PF ORGANISATION MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT GOVT. OF INDIA BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI ..R2 in W.P.10413 to 10415 and 11609 to 11612/2018.

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - I (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PF ORGANISATION BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI ..R4 in W.P.10413 to 10415 and 11609 to 11612/2018.

ADDL. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION 37 ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD CHENNAI 14 ..R5 in W.P.10413 to 10415 and 11609 to 11612/2018.

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. 12 THAMBUSAMY ROAD KILPAUK CHENNAI 10 ..R7 in W.P.10413 to 10415 and 11609 to 11612/2018.

THE MANAGING TRUSTEE TNCSC EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND TRUST TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. 12 THAMBUSAMY ROAD KILPAUK CHENNAI 10 ..R5 in W.P.10413 to 10415 and 11609 to 11612/2018.

THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION PB NO.3875 DR.BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE 641 018 SITRA CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND (TN/8012) 13/37 AVINASHI ROAD TNHB COLONY CIVIL AERODROME POST NEHRU NAGAR WEST COIMBATORE TAMIL NADU 641 014 ..R2 & R3 in W.P.13308/2018.

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER I EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION POST BOX NO. 588 SHREE COMPLEX D BLOCK 18 MADURAI ROAD THIRUCHIRAPALLI - 620008 ..R6 in W.P.14145/2018 TAMIL NADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LIMITED REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 67 MOUNT ROAD GUINDY CHENNAI - 32 ..R7 in W.P.14145/2018 THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) TAMIL NADU NEWS PRINT AND PAPERS LTD.

KAGITHAPURAM - 639136 KARUR DIST.

..R8 in W.P.14145/2018 TNPL PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP. BY ITS SECRETARY KAGITHAPURAM - 639136 KARUR DIST.

..R9 in W.P.14145/2018 REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN NO.37 ROYAPETTAH HIGH RD AZAD NGR ROYAPETTAH CHENNAI-14 REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION NO.3 RAJAJI SALAI TAMBARAM CHENNAI-45 ..R5 in W.P.14736/2018.

SECRETARY M/S.SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD NO.88 MOUNT RD GUINDY CHENNAI-32 ..R6 in W.P.14189,14736/2018 SENIOR V.P.INDIA LEGAR/ ETHIC & COMPLIANCE HEAD M/S.TECHNIP INDIA LTD TECHNIP CENTRE NO.19 VELACHERY MAIN RD GUINDY CHENNAI-32 ..R7 in W.P.14736/2018.

SECRETARY M/S. GREENSTAR FERTILSERS LTD. 88 MOUNT ROAD GUINDY CHENNAI - 600032 ..7th Respondent in W.P.16629/2018.

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER I EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION POST BOX NO.588 SHREE COMPLEX D BLOCK 18 MADURAI ROAD THIRUCHIRAPALLI 620008 ..R5 in W.P.6289 & 6296/2019 ..R6 in W.P.17170, 22430, 25483, 23131, 31358 & 4308/2019.

TAMIL NADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LIMITED REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN 67 MOUNTROAD GUINDY CHENNAI 600032 ..R6 & R7 in W.P.6289 & 6296/2019 THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) TAMIL NADU NEWS PRINT AND PAPERS LTD.

KAGITHAPURAM - 639136 KARUR DISTRICT ..R7, R8, R9 in W.P.17170, 22403, 25483, 23131, 31358/2018 & 4308/2019.

TNPL PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP. BY ITS SECRETARY KAGITHAPURAM 639136 KARUR DIST.

..R7 in W.P.6289 & 6296/2019.

7 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMR.-I EMPLOYMENT PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE AMBATTUR R40 1A TNHB OFFICE COMPLEX MOGAPPAIR RD MOGAPPAIR EAST CHENNAI-37 ..R7 in W.P.20458 to 20464, 24661 and 24662/2018.

THE CHAIRMAN SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD PADI CHENNAI 600 050 ..R8 in W.P.20458/2018.

THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER SUNDARAM CLAYTON EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND CORPORATE OFFICE JAYALAKSHMI ESTATE NO.29 HADDOWS ROAD CHENNAI 600 006 ..9th Respondent in W.P.20458/2018 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TUBE PRODUCTS OF INDIA (A UNIT OF TUBE INVESTMENT OF INDIA LTD) AVADI CHENNAI-54 ..R8 & R9 in W.P.20459/2018 THE VICE PRESIDENT EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST TUBE PRODUCT OF INDIA AVADI CHENNAI-54 ..9th Respondent in W.P.20459/2018.

THE CHAIRMAN SUNDARAM FASTNERS LTD PADI CHENNAI-50 THE PRESIDENT FINANCE CORPORATE OFFICE PF SECTION M/S.SUNDARAM FASTNERS LTD 7TH FLOOR NO.98A DR.

RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI MYLAPORE CHENNAI-04 ..Respondents 8 & 9 in W.P.20460/2018.

THE CHAIRMAN BEST & CROMPTON ENGINEERING LTD. NO. 28C INDUSTRIAL ESTATE (NORTH) AMBATTUR CHENNAI - 98 THE DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE PROVIDENT FUND BEST & CROMPTON ENGINEERING LTD. NO. 28C INDUSTRIAL ESTATE (NORTH) AMBATTUR CHENNAI - 98 ...R8 & R9 in W.P.20461/2018 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR GODREJ AGROVET LTD. 1B INDUSTRIAL ESTATE AMBATTUR CHENNAI - 98

VICE PRESIDENT - HR GODREJ AGROVET LTD. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST PIROJSHA NAGAR VIKHROLL EAST MUMBAI - 400079 ..Respondents in W.P.20462/2018.

THE CHAIRMAN BRAKES INDIA LTD. PADI CHENNAI - 50 THE GENERAL MANAGER - FINANCE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRUST BRAKES INDIA LTD. PADI CHENNAI - 50 .. R8 & R9 in W.P.20463/2018.

THE CHAIRMAN TI DIAMOND CHAIN INDIA (A UNIT OF TUBE INVESTMENT OF INDIA LTD.) PB NO. 11 CTH ROAD AMBATTUR CHENNAI - 53 THE DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TI DIAMOND CHAIN INDIA PB NO. 11 CTH ROAD AMBATTUR CHENNAI - 53 ..R8 & 9 in W.P.20464/2018.

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR LUCAS TVS LTD. PADI CHENNAI-600 050.

THE HEAD-CORPORATE(IR) LUCAS TVS PROVIDENT FUND TRUST PADI CHENNAI-600 050.

..Respondents 8 & 9 in W.P.No.23713 of 2018 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR WHEELS INDIA LTD PADI CHENNAI 50 THE VICE PRESIDENT (FINANCE) STAFF EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND WHEELS INDIA LTD PADI CHENNAI - 600050 ..Respondents 8 & 9 in W.P.24461/2018.

THE WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR WABCO INDIA LTD PLANT I PLOT NO.3(SP) 3RD MAIN ROAD AMBATTUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CHENNAI -600 058

THE GENERAL MANAGER-FINANCE EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND TRUST WABCO INDIA LTD PLANT I PLOT NO.3(SP) 3RD MAIN ROAD AMBATTUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CHENNAI -600 058 ..Respondents 8 & 9 in W.P.24662/2018 TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN THIRU.VI.KA.INDUSTRIAL ESTATE GUINDY CHENNAI-600032.

TAMIL NADU SIDCO PROVIDENT FUND TRUST THIRU.VI.KA.INDUSTRIAL ESTATE GUINDY CHENNAI-600 032.

..Respondents 6 & 7 in W.P.29512/2018.

THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION PB NO.3875 DR.BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE- 641 018 NTC (T&P) LTD MANAGERS SUPERVISORS & HEAD OFFICE STAFF PF (TN7510) NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 35 SOMASUNDARAM MILLS RD COIMBATORE ..R2 & R3 in W.P.4804/2018 FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI) REP BY CHAIRMAN & MD 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI-110 001 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SOUTH) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA NO.3 HADDOWS ROAD CHENNAI-06 FCI PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP BY ITS SECRETARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI) 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI-110 001 ..Respondents 7,8,9 in W.P.5405/2018 to 5407/2018

THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REP. BY THE CHIEF PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE NEW DELHI 110 066 ...R2 in W.P.5562 & 5563/2018.

ASHOK LEYLAND LIMITED 1 SARDAR PATEL ROAD GUINDY CHENNAI 32 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ..R3 & R4 in W.P.5562 & 5563/2018 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE TAMIL NADU STATE APEX COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. 233 (NEW NO. 4) NSC BOSE ROAD CHENNAI 1 THE CHAIRMAN THE TNSC BANK EPF TRUST 233 (NEW NO. 4) NSC BOSE ROAD CHENNAI 1 ..Respondents 7 & 8 in W.P.7126/2018. THE CHAIRMAN CUM MD SHRI PUNEET AGARWAL THE HANDICRAFTS AND HANDLOOMS EXPORTS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAVAN ANNEXE 1 TOLSTOY MARG NEW DELHI 110001 THE BRANCH-INCHARGE THE HANDICRAFTS AND HANDLOOMS EXPORTS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. SP 31-32 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE GUINDY CHENNAI 600032. THE HHEC OF INDIA LTD.

PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP. BY SECRETARY JAWAHAR VYAPAR BHAVAN ANNEXE 1 TOLSTOY MARG NEW DELHI 110001.

..Respondents 7,8 & 9 in W.P.846/2018 TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR LLA BUILDINGS II FLOOR 735 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 600002

TANCEM PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP. BY SECRETARY LLA BUILDINGS II LOOR 735 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 600002 ..Respondents 7 & 8 in W.P.909/2018, 6902/2019.

TAMIL NADU CEMENTS CORPORATION LTD. REP. BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR LLA BUILDINGS II FLOOR 735 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 600002 TANCEM PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP. BY SECRETARY LLA BUILDINGS II FLOOR 735 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 600002.

...Respondents 7,8,9 in W.P.910/2018,

W.P.22343/2018.

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEE S PF ORGANIZATION DR. BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE-641 018 ..R3 in W.P.30681, 30684, 30688/2018 THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVI DENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEE S PF ORGANIZATION DR.BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE-641 018 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER(PENSION) EMPLOYEE S PF ORGANIZATION DR.BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE-641 018 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER(ACCOUNTS) EMPLOYEE S PF ORGANIZATION DR.BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE-641 018 LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD.

REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING THE REGISTERED OFFICE AT PERIYANAICKEN PALAYAM COIMBATORE-641 020 ..R4 to R7 in W.P.30681,30684 and 30688/2018.

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATIION EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE THE MANAGEMENT ACC LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGER - HR MADUKKARAI CEMENT WORKS MADUKKARAI POST 641 105 COIMBATORE DISTRICT

...Respondents 3 & 4 in W.P.31347/2018

THE NSIC LIMITED NSIC BHAVAN REP BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NEW DELHI 110 020 THE NSIC EPF TRUST REP BY THE EPF SECRETARY NSIC LTD. NSIC BHAVAN OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NEW DELHI 110 020 ..Respondents 5 & 6 in W.P.2429/2019, W.P.2433/2019.

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE THE MANAGEMENT ACC LTD REP BY ITS MANAGER- HR MADUKKARAI CEMENT WORKS MADUKKARAI POST- 641 105 COIMBATORE DT ..Respondents 3 & 4 in W.P.4436/2019.

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER REGIONAL OFFICE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION JAYALAKSHMI PLAZA SWONAPURI SALEM-5 THE MANAGEMENT OF THALEME ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT LTD SURAMANGALAM SALEM- 636005 ..Respondents 2 & 3 in W.P.5315/2019.

ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (EPFO) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE R-40 A TNHB OFFICE COMPLEX MUGAPPAIR ROAD MUGAPPAIR (EAST) CHENNAI 600 037 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD (BPCL) REP. CHAIRMAN & MD BHARAT BHAVAN - 1 & 2 4 & 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD MUMBAI 400 001 INDIAN PROVIDENT TRUST REP.BY ITS TRUSTEES BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD (BPCL) BHARAT BHAVAN 4 & 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD MUMBAI 400 001 ..Respondents 5 to 7 in W.P.26234/2017 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-I REGIONAL OFFICE BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAWAN VYOMPRASTH KANWALI GMS ROAD DEHRADUN.

..R4 in W.P.32879/2017.

OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD (ONGC) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MD ONGC PANDIT DEENDAYAL UPADHYAYA URJA BHAVAN NELSON MANDELA MARG VASANT KUNJ-110 070.

ONGC LTD EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SHED NO.21 TEL BHAWAN ONGC DEHRADUN-248 003.

...R6 & R7 in W.P.32879/2017.

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA REP. BY CHAIRMAN & MD 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI-1.

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA NO.3 HADDOWS ROAD CHENNAI-6 FCI PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP. BY ITS SECRETARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI) 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI-110 001 ..Respondents 7 to 9 in W.P.33605 to 33607/2017.

THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE WAZIPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA NORTH DELHI-110 052.

..R3 in W.P.34331/2017.

WP No.14368 of 2018, 11413 to 11415, 11609 to 11612/2018 and 26234/2017:

Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Wrti of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter issued by the second respondent in No. Pension - I/12/33/EPS Amendment / 96 Vol II, dated 31.05.2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant pensioner benefits along with all consequential benefits and interest under EPS, WP No.10051 of 2018 & 32879/2017:

Calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter issued by the second respondent in No.

Pension-I/12/33/ EPS/Amendment/96 Vol.II dated 31.05.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the 5th respondent to grant higher pensionary benefits to the members of the petitioner association under clause 11(3) of Employees pension scheme 1995, as interpreted, clarified and directed by Honourable Supreme Court in its Judgments dated 31.03.2016 and 04.10.2016 read with approval of the Ministry of Labour and employment dated 16.03.2017 WP No.10274 of 2018 Directing the 5th respondent to receive the net amounts receivable by them towards refund of Provident Fund amounts received and allow the petitioner to receive their respective pensions based on their actual salary as directed by the Honorable Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 31.03.2016 and 04.10.2016 read with approval of the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 16.03.

2017 and the circular of the 2nd respondent dated 31.05.2017 WP No.10413 to 10415, 17170, 20458 to 20464, 22403, 23713, 24661 & 24662/2018, 25483, 5405 to 5407, 23131, 7126, 846, 909, 910, 29512, 31358, 4308/2019, 33605 to 33607/2017: calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter issued by the 4th respondent in No.: Pension / I/ 12 / 33/ EPS Amendment / 96 Vol II dated 31.05.

WP No.13308 of 2018 & 4804/2018:

calling for the records relating to the Circular No. Pension - I/ 12/ 33/ EPS/ Amendment / 96 / Vol. II dated 31.5.2017 issued by the 1st respondent, quash the same and direct respondents to sanction the enhanced pension on the actual pensionable salary to the members of the petitioner Association as ordered by the Honourable Supreme Court WP No.14145 of 2018 calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter issued by the 4th respondent in No. Pension / I / 12 / 33 / EPS Amendment / 96Vol-II, dt 31.5.2017 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant pension on higher wages under EPS, 1995 WP No.

14189 of 2018 Directing the 5h respondent to receive the net amounts receivable by them towards refund of Provident Fund amounts received and allow the petitioner to receive their respective pensions based on their actual salary as directed by the Honourable Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 31.03.2016 and 04.10.2016 read with approval of the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 16.03.2017 and the circular of the 2nd respondent dated 31.05.2017 WP No.14736 of 2018 calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter issued by the second respondent in No.Pension-I/12/33/ EPS/ Amendment/ 96 Vol.II dated 31.05.

2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the 4th respondent to grant higher pensionary benefits to the members of the petitioner association after netting off the payable to the 5th respondent and receivable from the 5th respondent, under clause 11(3) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, as interpreted, clarified and directed by Honourable Supreme Court in its judgments dated 31.03.2016 and 04.10.2016 read with approval of the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 16.03.2017 WP No.16229 of 2018 Directing the 5th respondent to receive the net amounts receivable by them towards refund of Provident Fund amounts received and allow the petitioner to receive their respective pensions based on their actual salary as directed by the Honble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 31.03.2016 and 04.10.

2016 read with approval of the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 16.03.2017 and the circular of the 2nd respondent dated 31.05.

WP No.5562 & 5563 of 2018 direct the respondents 2 and 3 or such other appropriate authorities under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 to revise and enhance the monthly pension paid to the petitioners by permitting them to remit back the 8.33% share of the employers contribution proportionate to the actual salary of the Petitioners in excess of Rs. 6500/- to the employees pension scheme of account from the date of commencement of the Scheme 1995 or from the date the salary of the petitioners exceeded 6500/- and disburse the recomputed pension with arrears calculated on the basic of average of 12 months salary exceeding the supposed ceiling limit immediately proceeding the date of retirement/ exit from the membership of the pension fund as granted vide jugdment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. 33032-33033 of 2015 and circular pension -I/12/33/EPSA Amendment/96/Vol II dated 23.03.2017.

WP No.22343 of 2018 & 6902/2019 To call for the records pertaining to the impugned circular bearing NO. Pension/ I/ 12/ 33/ EPS Amendment/ 96 Vol- II dated 31.05.2017 of the 4th respondent and quash the orders passed therein and consequently, direct the respondents to grant pension on higher wages under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 as per the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 10013-10014 of 2016 R.C.Gupta and others vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Provident Fund Organisation & Ors., case, reported in 2016 SCC 1639, WP No.30681 of 2018 directing the 3rd respondent to forthwith revise the pension to the eligible higher limit and also to pay the arrears of pension into the petitioner members banks account as furnished to them WP No.

30684 of 2018 calling for the records relating to impugned letter dated 25.10.2018 in reference No.CB/CBE/PPO/No.116095/2018 on the file 5th respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 6th respondent to continue to remit the revised higher pension of the petitioner WP No.30688 of 2018 calling for the records relating to impugned letter dated 25.10.2018 in reference No.CB/CBE/PPO/No.

WP No.31347 of 2018 Directing the 2nd respondent to process the applications of the Petitioners for revision of pension under Employee Pension Scheme, 1995 on actual (higher) wages exceeding the wage limit of Rs.6500/Rs.15000 per month submitted by the 4th Respondent along with its letter dated 30.06.2017 bearing dated MK/HRD/2017-2018/12 and letter dated 12.07.2017 bearing MK/HRD/2017-2018/13, in terms of the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No(s).10013-10014 of 2016 dated 04.10.2016 and the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 23.03.2017 bearing No.Pensioin-I/12/33/EPS Amendment/96/Vol.II/34007, arrive at the revised pension payable to the petitioners, arrive at the amount to be refunded by the Petitioners after deducting pension to be paid from the date of retirement and pay the revised pensio every month within the time stipulated.

WP No.2429 of 2019 & 2433/2019:

call for the records pertaining to the impugned Circular issued by the 4th and 3rd Respondents in No Pension-I/12/33/EPS Amendment/96 Vol-II, dated 31.05.2017 and No.Pension-I/12/33/EPS Amendment/96/Vol.II dated 23.03.2017 respectively and to QUASH the same and consequently directing the Respondents to grant pension to the Petitioners on higher wages with interest upto date of withdrawal of Provident Fund under Employee s Pension Scheme, 1995 by accepting the differential amount of EPF contribution on higher wages from the Petitioners with interest upto withdrawal of Provident Fund by the Petitioners, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honble Court WP No.

4436 of 2019 Directing the 2nd respondent to process the applications of the Petitioners for revision of pension under employees pension Scheme, 1995 on actual (higher ) wages exceeding the wage limit of Rs.6500/ Rs.15000 per month submitted by the 4th respondent along with its letter dated 12/07/2017 bearing MK/HRD/20172018/13, Letter dated 15/10/2018 bearing MK/HRD/2018-2019, letter dated 24/10/2018 bearing MK/HRD/2018-2019 and letter dated 10/01/2019 bearing No.MK/HRD/OTO/EPS, in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Superme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.(S) 10013-10014 of 2016 dated 04.10.2016 and the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 23.03.

2017 bearing No pension/I/12/33/EPS/Amendment 196/Vol II/134007, arrive at the revised pension payable to the Petitioners arrive at the amount to be refunded by the Petitioners after deducting pension to be paid from the date of retirement and pay the revised pension every month with the time frame.

WP No.5315 of 2019 Directing the Respondents to consider the Representation dated 23-7-2018 sent by the Petitioner union to extend the benefit of Employees Pension Scheme to all members of the Petitioner Union in the light of the Judgement made in the Case of R.C.GUPTA AND ORS VS Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation and ORS IN SLP NO 33032/2015 BY an order dated 4-10-2016 passed by the Honble Apex court. WP No.6289 of 2019 & 6296/2019:

Calling for the records pertaining to the impugned letter issued by the 3rd respondent in No.Pension /I/12/33/EPS Amendment/ 96 Vol.II, dated 31.05.2017 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to grant pension on higher wages under EPS, 1995 WP No.34331 of 2017 To call for the entire records of the 3rd respondent letter dated 04.08.2017 made in his proceedings by letter No.DC/ CPM/1338, since it is against the judgment of the Supreme Court of India made in S.L.P (Civil) Nos.33032 and 33033 of 2005 in Civil Appeal Nos.10013 and 10014 of 2016 dated 04.10.2016 and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to give the pensionary benefits of the members of the petitioner Association as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court of India made in S.L.P (Civil) Nos.33032 and 33033 of 2015 in Civil Appeal Nos.10013 and 10014 of 2016 dated 04.10.2016 For Petitioners :

Mr.M.S.Krishnan Senior Counsel for M/s.Sarvabhaaman Associates in W.P.No.14368/2018.

Mr.V.Karthik Senior Counsel for M/s.Vedavallikumar in WP Nos.10051, 10274, 14189, 14736, 16229, 30681/18, 30684 and 30688/18.

M/s.A.Jenasenan and Arun Dhanapalan in WP Nos.33605 to 33607 of 2017, 10413 to 10415/18, 11609 to 11612/18, 20455 to 20464/18, 23713/18, 24661/18, 24662/18, 5405 to 5407/18, 7126/18, 846/18.

Mr.A.E.Ravichandran in W.P.No.26234 & 32879 of 2017 M/s.S.Namasivayam, in WP No.13308/18 and 4804/18.

Mr.B.Ramamoorthy in W.P.No.34331 of 2017 Mr.K.Elangoo, in WP No.14145/18, 17170/18, 22403/18, 23131/18, 25483, 31358/18.

Mr.K.Govindarajan in WP No.29512/18 Mr.R.Sanjith, Assisted by M/s.Sindhu Krishnah for M/s.Chaly Associates in WP Nos.5562 and 5563/18 Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan in WP Nos. 909, 910/2018, 22343/18 and 6902/19 Mr.Balan Haridas in WP Nos.31347/18, and 4436/19 Mr.G.Sankaran in WP Nos.2429/19, and 2433/19 Mr.M.R.Raghavan in WP No.4308/19 Mr.A.Nagarathinam in WP No.5315/19 Mr.M.Purushothaman in WP No.6289 and 6296/19 For Respondents:

Mr.M/s.K.Raju, CGSC for R1 in WP Nos.14368/18, 11609 to 11612/18, 910/18 Mr.S.Makesh for R1 in WP Nos.10051/18, 10413 to 10415/18, 909, 10274 & for RR1 to 3 in WP Nos.14189/18, 23713/18, 6902/19 Mr.T.R.Sundaram, for RR2 to 5 in WP Nos.14368/18 & for RR 2 to 5 in WP Nos.10051/18, 31358/18 & for RR 2 to 6 in WP Nos.10413 to 10415/18, 11609 to 11612/18, 23131/18, 23713/18,

24661/18, 24662/18, 29512/18,7126/18, 846/18, 909, 910 & for RR 4 & 5 in WP Nos.14189 of 2018, 6289/19, 6296/19 & for RR 1 to 5 in WP Nos.14736/18 & for R1-Union of India R1 in WP No.17170/4 (Union of India Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi) & for RR 1 to 6 in WP Nos.20458 to 20464/18, 5405/18 to 5407/18 & for RR 1 to 3 in WP No.5562/18, & for RR 2 & 3 in WP No.5563/18.

And RR2 to 4 in WP 26234/17, 32879/17, & for RR2 to 6 in WP 33605 to 33607/17 & for RR2 & 3 in WP 34331/17.

Mr.J.Sathyanarayanaprasad for RR6 & 7 in WP Nos.14368/18, R7 in WP No.20458, 20459, 20460, 20461, 20462, 20463, 20464, 23713/18, 24661/18, & 24662/18 and for R5 in WP 26234 of 17 Mr.R.Veludas, CGC for R1 in WP 26234/17, 33605 to 33607/17 Dr.R.Gowri Advocate for RR7 & 8 in WP NO.10413 and 10414/18 Mr.J.Ramesh, Addl.G.P. for RR 7 & 8 in WP Nos.11609 to 11612/18 Mr.R.Thirunavukarasu, for RR1 & 2 in WP Nos.13308/18, 4804/18, & for RR2 to 6 in WP Nos.30681/18, 30684 & 30688/18 R2 in WP No.4308/19 & for RR2 & 3 in WP No.4436/19 & for RR5 & 6 in WP No.6902/19 & for R5 in WP 32879/17 Mr.N.Vijaya Baskar, Addl.C.G.S.C., for R1 in WP No.14145/18 and for R7&8 in WP 33605 & 33607/17

M/s.V.J.Latha for RR 2 to 6 in WP Nos.14145/18, 17170/18, 22403/18, 25483 & 31358/18 M/s.Shivakumar & Suresh for RR7 to 9 in WP Nos.25483/18, 14145/18, 17170/18, 22403/18, 31358/18 and 25483/18 Mr.K.Ramu Assisted by K.Vishnu for R5 in WP No.14736/18 Mr.T.S.N.Prabhakaran, SCG for RR1 to 5 in WP No.16229/18 Mr.Anand Goplan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan for RR 8 & 9 in WP Nos.20458/18, 20459/18 & for R4 in WP No.5562/18, 5563/18 & 31347/18 and for R6 in WP 26234/17 Mr.K.Thirukumaran, Addl.C.G.S.

for R1 in WP Nos.22403/18 & for RR1 to 3 in WP Nos.6289 & 6296/19 and for R5 in WP 32879/17 Mr.B.K.Girish Neelakandan for R1 in WP No.23131/18 and 4436/19 Mr.K.Seetha Ram, CGSC for R1 in WP No.24661/18, 24662/18 Mr.K.Ramachandramurthy, CGSC for R1 in WP No.25483/18 & for R1 in WP No.32879/17 M/s.B.Ramaratnam, CGSC for R1 in WP No.29512/18 M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates for R3 in WP No.4804 of 2018 Mr.S.Vijayakumar for RR7 to 9 in WP No.5405/18 to 5406/18 Mr.N.Ramesh, CGSC for R1 in WP No.5563/18

Mr.K.Raju, CGSC for R1 in WP No.7126/18 Mr.M.R.Raghavan for RR7 & 8 in WP No.7126/18 Mr.P.Ayyaswamy, CGSC for R1 in WP No.846/18, 535/19 Mr.K.S.Jeyaganesan, Senior Panel Counsel for R1 in WP No.30681/18, 30684 and 30688/18 M/s.G.Baskaran for R1 to R3 COMMON ORDER Since all the present Writ Petitions raise common issues and grounds, they are taken up together for final disposal as under:

2. There are two categories of the Writ Petitions pertaining to the employees from 'Exempted Establishments' under Section 17 of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act') and 'Unexempted Establishments, which are governed by the provisions of the Act.

3. The employees of both the above mentioned establishments are aggrieved by the denial of pension on the basis of their actual salaries received by them since the payment of pension was restricted to ceiling of salary as provided under the provisions of the Act and the Scheme framed therein. The dispute has its genesis, wherein, the Employees' Pension Scheme was introduced in 1995 in furtherance of Section 6A of the Act, which reads as under:

"6-A. Employees' Pension Scheme.- (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a scheme to be called the Employees' Pension Scheme for the purpose of providing for- (a) Superannuation pension, retiring pension or permanent total disablement pension to the employees of any establishment or class of establishments to which this applies; and (b) Widow or widower's pension, children pension or orphan pension payable to the beneficiaries of such employees.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6, there shall be established, as soon as may be after framing of the Pension Scheme, a

Pension Fund into which there shall be paid, from time to time, in respect of every employee who is a member of the Pension Scheme. (a) Such sums from the employer's contribution under section 6m not exceeding eight and one- third per cent. Of the basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance, if any, of the concerned employees, as may be specified in the Pension Scheme; (b) Such sums as are payable by the employers of exempted establishments under sub-section (6) of section 17; (c) The net assets of the Employees' Family Pension as on the date of the establishment of the Pension Fund; (d) Such sums as the Central Government may, after due appropriation by Parliament by law in this behalf, specify.

(3) On the establishment of the Pension Fund, the Family Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the ceased scheme) shall ceased to operate and all assets of the ceased scheme shall vest in and shall stand transferred to, and all liabilities under the ceased scheme shall be enforceable against, the Pension Fund and the beneficiaries under the ceased scheme shall be entitled to draw the benefits, not less than the benefits, they were entitled to under the ceased scheme, from the Pension Fund.

(4) The Pension Fund shall vest in and be administered by the Central Board in such manner as may be specified in the Pension Scheme.

(5) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Pension Scheme may provide for all or any of the matters specified in Schedule III.

(6) The Pension Scheme may provide that all or any of its provisions shall take effect either prospectively or retrospectively on such date as may be specified in that behalf in that scheme.

(7) A Pension Scheme, framed under sub-section

(1) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period or thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both House agree in making any modification in the scheme or both House agree that the scheme should not be made, the scheme shall thereafter have effect only in such modified from or be of no effect, as the case may

be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that scheme."

4. The Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter referred to 'the Pension Scheme') was introduced with effect from 16.11.1995 and and wherever the Act is made applicable, the scheme was made compulsory covering all the employees employed in various establishments which are governed by the Act and the Pension Scheme.

5. The grievances of the employees are two fold, viz., firstly, in respect of unexempted establishments, the Employees Provident Fund Organization (in short, 'EPFO') has introduced a cut off date as 01.12.2004 for the purpose exercising option in terms of proviso introduced to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme, as per which, the employees could contribute PF contribution on the basis of the actual salary drawn by them. The proviso 11(3) introduced on 28.02.1996 by GSR 134 was put into effect from 16.3.1996. Clause 11(3) along with proviso reads as under:

"11. Determination of Pensionable salary.- (1) .....

(2) .....

(3) The maximum pensionable salary shall be limited to (Rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6500/-) per month.

Provided that if at the option of the employer and employee, contribution paid on salary exceeding (Rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6500) per month from the date of commencement of this Scheme or from the date salary exceeds (Rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6500) whichever is later, and 8.33 per cent, share of the employers thereof is remitted into Pension Fund, pensionable salary shall be based on such higher salary."

and secondly, in respect of exempted establishments, calculation for payment of pension on the basis of actual salary received by the employees, cannot be considered feasible since such contributions were made by the employees to the respective establishments which establishments had their own Provident Fund Trust and maintained by the respective exempted establishments. According to the employees, the above said grievances/issues are covered by various decisions of the High Courts, viz., Kerala, Rajasthan, Telengana and also a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India. According to the employees, the EPFO was a party to the litigations before the various High Courts as indicated above and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and hence, the claim of these writ petitioners and the challenge to the denial of calculation of pension on the basis of actual salary received by them, is not open to any fresh adjudication, as according to them, the issues are no more res integra. This was particularly so that the EPFO itself and the Ministry concerned had recognized the right of the employees in regard to the subject claim and implemented the orders of the various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by extending the benefit of higher pension to thousands of employees and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of EPFO or the Government to resist the claim of the employees herein.

6. As regards the first point of grievance is concerned, i.e., the prescription of cut off date as 01.12.2004 for the purpose of exercising option with reference to Proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme, the learned Senior Counsels and the learned Counsels appearing for the employees in the Writ Petitions would draw the attention of this Court to the order passed by the Kerala High Court in W.P.(C) Nos.6643 & 9929 of 2007, dated 4.11.2011, wherein, a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court dealt with various objections raised on behalf of the EPFO and also after adverting to the claims of the petitioners therein, has finally held that the fixation of cut of date, i.e. 01.12.2004 was invalid and the petitioners therein were entitled to avail the benefit under Proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. The said detailed order passed by the learned single Judge dealing with every objection raised on behalf of the EPFO, has been brought to the attention of this Court, particularly the observation made in paragraphs 3 to 5 which are extracted hereunder:

"3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

Clause 11 of the Employees' Pension Scheme reads as follows:

"Determination of pensionable salary.-

(1) 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 12 months preceding the date of exit from the membership of the Employees' Pension Fund:

Provided that if a member was not in receipt of full pay during the period of twelve months preceding the day he ceased to be the member of Pension Fund, the average of previous 12 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 12 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 12 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 rupees six thousand and five hundred /Rs.6,500/ per month. Provided that if at the option of the employer and employee, contribution paid on salary exceeding rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500 per month from the date of commencement of this Scheme or from the date salary exceeds rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500 whichever is later, and 8.33 per cent share of the employers thereof is remitted into the Pension Fund, pensionable salary shall be based on such higher salary." (underlining supplied) Proviso to clause 11(3) was added by G.S.R.

No.134, dated 28.2.1996 with effect from 16.3.1996. I do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the Provident Fund Organization that the proviso is only prospective in nature. The proviso, which was added with effect from 16.3.1996 by G.S.R. Dated 28.2.1996, speaks of contributions on salary from the date of commencement of the Scheme, which is prior to 28.2.1996. Therefore, the very language of the proviso makes it explicitly clear that the proviso is intended to be operative retrospectively from the date of commencement of the Scheme, insofar as the Scheme came into force with effect from 16.11.1995. Therefore, the proviso is certainly retrospective in nature and consequently the petitioners are entitled to avail of the benefit of the proviso retrospectively, provided they are able to make good the arrears of contributions in respect thereof which they have

agreed to be transferred from their Provident Fund account, which the Provident Fund Organization actually did. In fact, originally the Provident Fund Organization was also of the opinion that the proviso is retrospective in nature and that is why they permitted the petitioners to avail of the benefit of that proviso by paying off the arrears of contributions payable by transfer from their Provident Fund account. In fact even according to the Provident Fund Organisation for availing of the benefit retrospectively the cut off date has been fixed. As such, it is too late for the Provident Fund Organization to contend otherwise.

4. The second objection is regarding the cut off date fixed. According to the Provident Fund Organization a cut off date of 1.12.2004 has been fixed for applying for benefit of the proviso by changing over to payment of contributions on actual salary basis. But the Provident Fund Organization has not been able to produce any document by which such a cut off date has been fixed by anybody. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme and the Employees' Pension Scheme do not contain any provision enabling the 2nd respondent or anybody else to fix a cut off date for the purpose of availing of the benefit of proviso to clause 11(3). Even assuming that anybody has any power to fix that cut off date, certainly it is not the 2nd respondent. As such I am convinced that the cut off date fixed by the 2nd respondent is clearly without jurisdiction. That being so, the benefits already granted to the petitioners under the proviso to clause 11(3) cannot now be reversed or withdrawn as done in this case.

5. The third contention is that under paragraph 26(6) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, the employees are required to file a joint application, which has not been done in this case. But, the interesting thing is that the 2nd respondent did not insist on the same, while permitting the petitioners to avail of the benefit of the proviso to clause 11(3). It is when these writ petitions came up that they have taken such a contention. Even assuming that it is so, nothing prevents the Provident Fund Organisation in directing the employer and employee to file a joint

application, which they have not done. Added to that, the employer is also a party to these writ petitions before me. They do not have any objection in the petitioners being the given benefit of the proviso to clause 11 (3) of the Employees' Pension Scheme. Therefore, that cannot now be held as ground for denying the benefit to the petitioners. If at all what they can do is to direct the employer and the employee to file a joint application, which is merely procedural in nature which defect can be cured at any time. In the above circumstances, I allow these writ petitions quashing the orders impugned in these two writ petitions. It is declared that the fixation of cut off date of 1.12.2004 is without jurisdiction and despite the fact that the petitioners have filed the applications for benefit under the proviso to clause 11(3), after the cut off date so fixed, the petitioners are entitled to avail of the benefit under the proviso to clause 11(3) of the Employees' Pension Scheme. As such I declare that the benefits was rightly given to the petitioners.

Consequently, the arrears of contributions payable by the petitioners for availing of the benefit of the said proviso shall again to be transferred from the Provident Fund account of the petitioners to the Employees' Pension Fund account of the petitioners. Orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

7. As against the above order of the learned single Judge, a Writ Appeal in W.A.No.569 of 2012 was preferred before a Division Bench of Kerala High Court and by its judgment dated 5.3.2013, the Division Bench has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The operative portion of the judgment passed by the Division Bench as found in paragraphs 9 to 12 is extracted as under:

"9. .... The learned Singe judge noticed that Proviso to clause 11 (3) was added by G.S.R. No.134, dated 28/2/2006 with effect from 16/3/1996. The learned Single Judge has given good reasons to turn down the contention that the proviso is only prospective in nature . As noticed by the learned Single Judge the proviso which was added with effect from 16/3/1996 by G.S.R. Dated 28/2/1996, speaks of contributions on salary from

the date of commencement of the Scheme, which is prior to 28/2/1996. We also feel that the very language of the proviso makes it explicitly clear that the proviso is intended to be operative retrospectively from the date of the commencement of the Scheme, in so far as the scheme came into force with effect from 16/11/1995. When it is seen that the proviso is retrospective, consequently the writ petitioners will be entitled to avail of the benefit of the proviso retrospectively provided they are able to make good the arrears of contributions in respect thereof which they have agreed to be transferred from their Provident Fund Account which the Provident Fund Organization actually did.

Originally the Provident Fund Organization was also of the opinion that the proviso is retrospective in nature and that is why they permitted the petitioners to avail of the benefit of that proviso by paying off the arrears of contributions payable by transfer from their Provident Fund Account. The contention of the Provident Fund Organistion is that for availing of the benefit retrospectively the cut off date has been fixed.

10. According to us, the learned Single Judge has correctly understood and decided the issue regarding the cut off date fixed. According to the Provident Fund Organisation, cut off date of 1/12/2004 has been fixed for applying for benefit of the proviso by changing over to payment of contributions on actual salary basis. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that no document by which such a cut off date has been fixed by anybody is produced by the Provident Fund Organisation. The Employees' Provident Fund Scheme and the Employees' Pension Scheme also do not contain any provision enabling the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or anybody else to fix a cut off date for the purpose of availing of the benefit of proviso to clause 11(3). According to us, the decision of the learned Single Judge that - even assuming that anybody has power to fix that cut off date, certainly such power is not with the 2nd respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, is quite correct.

11. We find that the learned Single Judge has considered the contention of the Provident Fund

Organisation that the employers and the employee require to file a joint application which has not been done in this case. But as noticed by the learned Single Judge, the regional Provident Fund Commissioner did not insist on the same, while permitting the petitioners to avail of the benefit of the proviso to clause 11 (3). Hence, the nonfiling of the joint application was rightly held to be not a ground for denying the benefit to the writ petitioners.

12. In short, in our opinion there is no infirmity in the leading common judgment and also in the separate judgments which are passed in terms of the leading common judgment. These appeals fail and will stand dismissed. The parties will suffer their respective costs."

8. The Division Bench has held that neither the Act nor the Pension Scheme would provide for any cut off date for the purpose of availing of the benefit of the Proviso to Clause 11 (3). In fact, the Division Bench has also upheld that in case of non-filing of joint application under Clause 11(3) was not a valid ground to deny the benefit of higher pension to the writ petitioners therein. In short, the Division Bench has confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge in toto. Thereafter, it appears that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was approached as against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in SLP (C) No.7074 of 2014 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the same finding no legal or valid ground for interference, vide its order dated 31.3.2016.

9. The learned Senior Counsels would draw attention of this Court to an order dated 4.10.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, which according to them, clinches the issue in favour of the employees. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.10013-10014 of 2016 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.33032 to 33033 of 2015 in "R.C.Gupta and others etc., versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO & Others", wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the Civil Appeals arose out of the order of the Division Bench passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court reversing the order of the learned Single Judge, who directed that the employees would be entitled to the benefit of deposit of 8.33% of their actual salary in the Pension Fund irrespective of the ceiling limit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the submissions of the rival parties and held as under:

"6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have read and considered the

orders of the High Court, the provisions of the Act, the Provident Fund Scheme as well as the relevant provisionsof the Pension Scheme.

7. Clause 11 (3) of the Pension Scheme is in the following terms :

11. Determination of Pensionable Salary.

xxx xxx xxx

(3) The maximum pensionable salary shall be limited to 1[rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500/-] per month.

[Provided that if at the option of the 1 Sub-section by G.S.R.774(E), dated 8th October, 2001 (w.e.f.1-6-2001) 2 Subsection by G.S.R. 134, dated 28th February, 1996 (w.e.f. 16-3-1996) employer and employee, contribution paid on salary exceeding [rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500/-] per month from the date of commencement of this Scheme or from the date salary exceeds [rupees six thousand and five hundred/Rs.6,500/-] whichever is later, and 8.33 per cent share of the employers thereof is remitted into the Pension Fund, pensionable salary shall be based on such higher salary.]

8. Reading the proviso, we find that the reference to the date of commencement of the Scheme or the date on which the salary exceeds the ceiling limit are dates from which the option exercised are to be reckoned with for calculation of pensionable salary. The said dates are not cut-off dates to determine the eligibility of the employer-employee to indicate their option under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. A somewhat similar view that has been taken by this Court in a matter coming from the Kerala High Court, wherein the Special Leave Petition (C) No.7074 of 2014 filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was rejected by this Court by order dated 31.03.2016. A beneficial Scheme, in our considered view, ought not to be allowed to be defeated by reference to a cut-off date, particularly, in a situation where (as in the present case) the employer had deposited 12% of the actual salary and not 12% of the ceiling limit of Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6,500/- per month, as

the case may be.

9. A further argument has been made on behalf of the Provident Fund Commissioner that the appellant-employees had already exercised their option under paragraph 26(6) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme. Paragraph 26

(6) is in the following terms:

"26. Classes of employees entitled and required to join the fund xxx xxx xxx

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph, an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, on the joint request in writing, of any employee of a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies and his employer, enroll such employee as a member or allow him to contribute more than 3[six thousand five hundred rupees] of his pay per month if he is already a member of the fund and thereupon such employee shall be entitled to the benefits and shall be subject to the conditions of the fund, provided that the employer gives an undertaking in writing that he shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such employee].

10. We do not see how exercise of option under paragraph 26 of the Provident Fund Scheme can be construed to estop the employees from exercising a similar option under paragraph 11 (3). If both the employer and the employee opt for deposit against the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, exercise of option under paragraph 26 of the Provident Scheme is inevitable. Exercise of the option under paragraph 26(6) is a necessary precursor to the exercise of option under Clause 11(3). Exercise of such option, therefore, would not foreclose the exercise of a further option under Clause 11

(3) of the Pension Scheme unless the circumstances warranting such foreclosure are clearly indicated.

11. The above apart in a situation where the deposit of the employer's share at 12% has been on the actual salary and not the ceiling

amount, we do not see how the Provident Fund Commissioner could have been aggrieved to file the L.P.A. before the Division Bench of the High Court. All that the Provident Fund Commissioner is required to do in the case is an adjustment of accounts which in turn would have benefitted some of the employees. At best what the Provident Commissioner could do and which we permit him to do under the present order is to seek a return of all such amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withdrawn from their Provident Fund Account before granting them the benefit of the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Once such a return is made in whichever cases such return is due, consequential benefits in terms of this order will be granted to the said employees.

12. Consequently and in light of the above, we allow these appeals and set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the above decision, has categorically held that where the deposit of the employer's share at 12% has been made on the actual salary and not on the ceiling amount, the question of Provident Fund Organization being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, does not arise at all. Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the contribution if made, i.e. 12% on the actual salary drawn by the employer, it was not open to EPFO to deny the calculation and payment of pension on the basis of actual salary received by the pensioner and cannot insist in applying the ceiling limit as contemplated under the provisions of the Act and the Pension Scheme.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the final paragraph of the order, has held that it was only a matter of book adjustment and even in cases where the amounts were returned to the employees concerned on their retirement, the EPFO can always demand for return of those amounts to the extent of the enhanced PF contribution paid by the employer as well as employee on the basis of salaries received by them and such amounts being returned, pension can be calculated and paid to the employees on the basis of their actual salary received by them at the time of their retirement.

11. In similar circumstances, according to the learned Senior Counsels, the High Court of Telangana has allowed a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.33804 of 2012, etc.,in favour of the employees, vide its order dated 24.9.2018 having held in paragraphs 12 to 14 as under:

"12. On plain reading of relevant paragraphs of the EPF Scheme 1952 and Pension Scheme 1995, I am of the considered opinion that no distinction can be drawn between exempted category employer and non exempted category employer for application of Pension Scheme 1995. Admittedly no exemption is granted to RTC from the 1995 pension scheme and its employees are enrolled and contributions are made under 1995 scheme. Further, it is categorical assertion of the respondent RTC that the entire information including higher contributions made based on the actual salary drawn by the petitioners was already furnished to the EPFO. It is not disputed that 8.33% of actual salary was being credited to EPFO all along. As noted above, it was not objected by EPFO. Thus, it is not open to EPFO to raise plea of non compliance of paragraph 26.6 at this distance of time and to deprive higher monthly pension drawable by the petitioners.

13. Pension Scheme 1995 is formulated by Government of India to enable employees working in the establishments where monthly pension system is not in vogue unlike in Government of India or State Government service and it enables the employees after termination of their service to draw some kind of monthly pension. It is a social welfare scheme to enable post retirement sustenance. Monthly pension is determined based on the amount accrued to the account of employee at the time of termination of service. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein have made higher contribution than the ceiling limit imposed and amount is accrued to the account of EPFO. Thus, petitioners are entitled to draw higher pension based on the higher contribution made by them 8 than the minimum amount required. Even assuming that there was no compliance of paragraph 26.6 the employees cannot be deprived of their higher pension on this hyper technical ground.

14. Thus, the orders impugned in W P Nos. 32028, 33091 and 33094 of 2013 rejecting the request of the petitioners for higher pension and order in W.P. 33804 of 2012, to the extent of not sanctioning the higher pension to petitioner therein are set aside. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation is directed to work out the amount of pension payable to petitioners based on

the actual contribution made by them over and above ceiling of Rs.6500/- prescribed. The entire exercise shall be undertaken and completed and arrears and monthly pension shall be drawn and paid to petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed."

12.

Similarly, the High Court of Rajasthan, in a batch of Writ Petitions in S.B. Civil Writs No.17616 of 2017, etc. vide order dated 11.12.2018 also, has held in favour of the employees including the exempted establishments, as could be seen from paragraphs 13 to 24 of the order, which are extracted hereunder: "13. In the case of State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Surendra Mohnot and ors: 2014(2) WLC (SC) Civil 358, the Apex Court was examining a similar issue where the order was passed on agreement of the counsel for the parties and the question arose was whether a review would be maintainable by one of the parties having conceded the decision before the Court. Examining the said aspect, the Apex Court held that it is well settled in law that there is no estoppel in law. The consent given in a Court that a controversy is covered by judgment which has no applicability whatsoever and pertains to a different field, cannot stop a party from raising the point that the same was erroneously cited.

14. In the case of Union of India Vs. Heera Lal: 1996(10) SCC 574, it has been held that the concession made by the Government Advocate on question of law could not be said to be binding upon the Government.

15. The power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution is an inherent power of the High Court as held by the Apex Court in the case of Shivdeo Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others: AIR 1963 (SC) 1909. The power can be exercised as plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave palpable errors committed by it. However, as a word of caution, it is to be noted that the power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power and a review by no means is an appeal in disguise. Finality of a judgment delivered by the

Court would not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.

16. Keeping in view the aforesaid guidelines, this Court finds that the order passed by the Court dated 19/05/2017, while noticing the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Gupta & ors. (supra) and holding that the ratio of the said judgment is applicable, allowed the bunch of writ petitions. The facts of the cases were not noticed in view of the consent of counsel for both the parties. The respondentsreview petitioners by way of these review petitions have sought to distinguish the case of the petitioners herein from the facts of the case in R.C. Gupta & ors. (supra) as a ground for review of the order. Thus, it would be appropriate to notice certain facts of the writ petitions. The petitioners in the writ petitions were employees of Instrumentation Limited, Kota and though the salary of the petitioners exceeded the limits as prescribed under Paragraph 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, as well as Clause 11

(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, yet the employer made provident fund contributions calculating the employees' share and employers' share by reckoning the actual total salary without considering the ceiling limit. However, the amount remitted to the petitioners' pension account was the amount reckoning the pay limit to the ceiling prescribed i.e. Rs.6,500/-. The remaining amount remained with the PF Trust of the Instrumentation Limited which is one of the exempted institution in terms of Section 17 of the Act of 1952. Thus, 8.33% of the ceiling limit was deposited with the pension fund being regulated by the EPFO.

17. Similar situation was arising with the employees working in the Instrumentation Limited at Kota and the Kerala High Court in the matters of various employees passed a judgment in the case of M. Sreenivasan & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors. [W.P. (C) No.11183/2015], decided on 07/04/2015 directing as under:-

5. Following the binding precedents, this writ petition is also disposed of

directing that the 8.33% of the employer's contribution, proportionate to the salary of the employee, in excess of Rs.6,500/-, shall now be credited to the Pension Scheme and orders passed in accordance with law. Needless to say, the interest accrued in the Provident Fund Account to that extent also will stand transferred to the Pension Account.

6. With respect to retired employees, who have drawn their retirement benefits by way of Provident Fund proportionate amounts along with interest accrued in the account as also that accrued after the withdrawal of the Provident Fund amounts, have to be refunded to the Provident Fund Organization. The retired employees shall submit joint applications, along with their employer wherever the same has not been done. The directions above noted shall be complied within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

7. It is also stated that the judgment passed in the same lines in other writ petitions were confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A No. 1442 of 2014. But, however, leaving the question open to be considered depending upon the result of the petitions filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That reservation shall be there in the present writ petition also.

18. The SLP No.7074/2014 preferred was rejected by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 31/03/2016 and the aforesaid directions were upheld and the said aspect was noticed while delivering the judgment in the case of R.C. Gupta & ors. (supra). Thus, merely because the amount of PF is deposited in the PF Trust of the Exempted Organization and not with the EPFO, the ratio of the judgment passed in the case of R.C. Gupta & ors. (supra) would not alter and has to be applied equally to all the employees who may be either

depositing their share in the PF Trust of an exempted organization or with the EPFO directly. Accordingly, the claim of the review petitioners in the aforesaid review petitions that the order should be reviewed on the ground of the aforesaid distinction is not made out. It is not a case where a different judgment would be applicable to the facts of the case and this Court finds that the judgment passed in the case of R.C. Gupta & ors. (supra) would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present cases also.

19. The judgment passed by the Apex Court takes into its ambit and considering the fact that employees may have already received their provident fund amount and therefore, the directions have been issued accordingly taking into consideration all the aspects.

20. In the other writ petitions, which have been heard alongwith these review petitions, this Court finds that the only difference of facts is in relation to the respondents therein namely; RIICO and RSRTC which are also exempted organizations in terms of Section 17 of the Act of 1952. Further, once a judgment has been passed by the Supreme Court, it would have its applicability to all the organizations uniformly. Thus, it would be useful to quote the relevant paras of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Gupta & ors (supra) which are reproduced as under:- "8. Reading the proviso, we find that the reference to the date of commencement of the Scheme or the date on which the salary exceeds the ceiling limit are dates from which the option exercised are to be reckoned with for calculation of pensionable salary.

The said dates are not cut-off dates to determine the eligibility of the employer-employee to indicate their option under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. A somewhat similar view that has been taken by this Court in a matter coming from the Kerala High Court, wherein the Special Leave Petition (C) No.

order dated 31.3.2016. A beneficial Scheme, in our considered view, ought not to be allowed to be defeated by reference to a cut-off date, particularly, in a situation where (as in the present case) the employer had deposited 12% of the actual salary and not 12% of the ceiling limit of ' 5,000/- or ' 6,500/- per month, as the case may be.

9. A further argument has been made on behalf of the Provident Fund Commissioner that the Appellant-employees had already exercised their option under paragraph 26(6) of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme. Paragraph 26(6) is in the following terms:

26. Classes of employees entitled and required to join the fund xxx xxx xxx (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph, an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, on the joint request in writing, of any employee of a factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies and his employer, enroll such employee as a member or allow him to contribute more than Subs.

By Notification No. S350/2/2/96-SS II (sic S-35012/2/96- SS II ), dated 4th May, 2001, for "rupees five thousand". Earlier the words "rupees five thousand were substituted by G.S.R. 718(E) dated 23rd September, 1994, for the words "rupees three thousand and five hundred" (w.e.f. 1.10.1994) [six thousand five hundred rupees] of his pay per month if he is already a member of the fund and thereupon such employee shall be entitled to the benefits and shall be subject to the conditions of the fund, provided that the employer gives an undertaking in writing that he shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such employee].

10. We do not see how exercise of option under paragraph 26 of the Provident Fund Scheme can be construed to estop the employees from exercising a similar option

under paragraph 11(3). If both the employer and the employee opt for deposit against the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, exercise of option under paragraph 26 of the Provident Scheme is inevitable. Exercise of the option under paragraph 26(6) is a necessary precursor to the exercise of option under Clause 11(3). Exercise of such option, therefore, would not foreclose the exercise of a further option under Clause 11

(3) of the Pension Scheme unless the circumstances warranting such foreclosure are clearly indicated.

11. The above apart in a situation where the deposit of the employer's share at 12% has been on the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, we do not see how the Provident Fund Commissioner could have been aggrieved to file the L.P.A. before the Division Bench of the High Court. All that the Provident Fund Commissioner is required to do in the case is an adjustment of accounts which in turn would have benefited some of the employees. At best what the Provident Commissioner could do and which we permit him to do under the present order is to seek a return of all such amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withdrawn from their Provident Fund Account before granting them the benefit of the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Once such a return is made in whichever cases such return is due, consequential benefits in terms of this order will be granted to the said employees."

21. The said judgment is binding on all the parties.

22. It is also noticed that the Provident Fund Department, in these review petitions, itself has admitted of having released the amount in favour of 1175 pensioners upto 30/06/2017, hence no distinction can be drawn between the contributors to the Pension Scheme.

23. Thus viewed, the action of the respondents in denying the benefit to the

pensioners who are members of the Pension Scheme, is held to be unjustified. While reiterating the order passed by this Court earlier, the petitioners are granted liberty to submit option before the Provident Fund Commissioner under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme and the Provident Fund Commissioner shall thereafter obtain the amount from the respective PF Trust as per the said ratio of 8.55% and thereafter release all consequential benefits accordingly in terms of and as directed by the Apex Court hereinabove.

24. All the petitioners would have to submit an application for seeking of an option for receiving pension on the full salary and only after their depositing the PF amount which they have received from their concerned trust to the extent of 8.33% and the benefit of this judgment would be subject to their depositing the amount already received by them from PF Account of the PF Trust. Upon their depositing the said amount of 8.33% as calculated by the PF Trust, the PF Trust shall accordingly transfer the same to the EPFO Pension Fund and the pension shall accordingly be calculated and released. The exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months."

13. The Rajasthan High Court has, in fact, held that even the employees of exempted establishes are entitled to the benefit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered in "R.C.Gupta case".

14. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners would submit that in respect of the Writ Petitions, pertaining to the employees from the unexempted establishments, the issue has been settled by various High Courts and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same were also implemented by the EPFO by extending the benefit to thousands of employees. Therefore, the resistance by the EPFO in respect of unexempted establishments was also discountenanced by various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, it is no more open to the EPFO to offer fresh resistance before this Court as if that issue was not settled at all. Therefore, the learned counsels would submit that any rejection orders in respect of unexempted establishments or refusing to accept the option exercised by the employees on their retirement for calculation of pension on the

basis of their actual salaries, is required to be interfered with since their claims are squarely and fully covered which cannot be denied by the EPFO. In fact, the learned counsels would also point to the fact that after the orders passed by the Kerala High Court and particularly, the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "R.C.Gupta case", a Circular was issued on 23.3.2017 wherein, a decision was taken to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The said Circular is extracted here under:

CIRCULAR No:Pension-I/33/EPSAmendment/96/VoI.II Dated: 23-03-2017 To, All Regional P.F. Commissioner, Regional Office/Sub-Regional Office.

Subject:- Allowing members of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 the benefit of the actual salary in the Pension Fund exceeding wage limit of either Rs. 5000/- or Rs. 6500 per month from the effective date respectively as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in SLP No.3303233033 of 2015 -Regarding. Sir, The matter of determination of pensionable salary exceeding statutory wages ceiling and exercise of option under deleted proviso to Para 11(3) of the EPS, 95 was examined in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order in SLP No.33032-33033 of 2015.

2) The Hon'ble Apex court in SLP No.3303233033 of 2015 observed that the reference to the date of commencement of the Scheme or the date on which the salary exceeds the ceiling limit are dates from which the option exercised are to be reckoned with for calculation pensionable salary. The said dates are not cut-off dates to determine the eligibility of the employeremployee to indicate their option under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. It has further been observed that a beneficial Scheme, ought not to be allowed to be defeated by reference to a cut-off date, particularly, in a situation where (as in the present case) the employer had deposited 12% of the actual salary

and not 12% of the ceiling limited of Rs. 5000/- or Rs. 6500/- per month, as the case may be.

In a situation where the deposit of the employer's share at 12% has been on the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, the Provident Fund Commissioner could seek a return of all such amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withdrawn from their Provident fund Account before granting them the benefits of the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Once such a return is made in whichever cases is due, consequential benefits in terms of this order will be granted to the said employees.

Thus a member contributing to the Provident Fund on the wages exceeding the statutory ceiling or who had contributed to the Provident Fund on wages exceeding the Statutory ceiling cannot be debarred from exercising the option to contribute on such higher wages to the pension fund. (Copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court enclosed).

3) Accordingly a proposal was sent to MOL&E to allow members of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 who had contributed on higher wages exceeding the statutory wage ceiling of 6500/- in the Provident Fund to divert 8.33% of the salary exceeding Rs 6500/- to the Pension Fund with up to date interest as declared under EPF Scheme, 1952 from time to time to get the benefit of pension on higher salary on receipt of joint option of the Employer and Employee.

4) The MOL&E vide letter dated 03.2017 has conveyed its approval to allow members of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 who had contributed on higher wages exceeding the statutory wage ceiling of Rs. 6500/- in the Provident Fund to divert 8.33% of the salary exceeding Rs.6500/- to the Pension Fund with up to date interest as declared under EPF Scheme, 1952 from time to time to get the benefit of pension on higher salary on receipt of joint option of the Employer and Employee. (copy enclosed for ready reference)

5) The officers in charge of all field offices are directed to take necessary action accordingly in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.33032- 33033 of 2015 as approved by the Government and as per the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 and Schemes framed there under.

(This issues with the approval of CPFC.) Yours faithfully, (Dr. S.K. Thakur) Addl. Central PF Commissioner, HQ(Pension)"

15. In order to appreciate the stand of the EPFO as to how they rightly understood the legal implication of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the learned counsels would submit that a conscious decision has been taken to implement the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is no more open to the EPFO to raise any kind of objection before this Court as they are estopped from making such objection in the circumstances of the case.

16. Apart from the issue pertaining to unexempted establishments, the real bone of contention in the present batch of Writ Petitions before this Court, is, in regard to the exempted establishments under Section 17 of the Act, as according to the EPFO, the decisions of the Kerala High Court and other High Courts and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "R.C.Gupta case", there was no consideration of the employees' claim from exempted establishments. According to the EPFO, the employees of the exempted establishments stand on a different footing and they cannot maintain parity in treatment and claim for higher pensionary benefits on the basis of actual salary received by them. Since these establishments were not governed by the Act in view of the exemption granted to them and therefore, the payment of provident fund contribution on the basis of higher salary received by the employees did not arise since the Provident Fund Scheme, as per para 26(6) is not applicable to these establishments. Para 26(6) of the Pension Scheme is extracted hereunder:

"26.Classes of employees entitled and required to join the fund.-

(1) to (5) ......

......

......

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph [an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner] may, on the joint request in writing, of any employee of a

factory or other establishment to which this Scheme applies and his employer, enroll such employee as a member or allow him to contribute more than rupees [fifteen thousand rupees] of his pay per month if he is already a member of the Fund and thereupon such employee shall be entitled to the benefits and shall be subject to the conditions of the Fund, provided that the employer gives an undertaking in writing that he shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such employee."

17. In the said circumstances, the EPFO has taken a conscious decision not to extend the benefit of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the employees of the exempted establishments and therefore issued instructions dated 31.5.2017, that no member of the Pension Scheme from the exempted establishments shall be eligible for the benefits as contemplated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in R.C.Gupta's case. The instructions dated 31.5.2017 are extracted as under:

CIRCULAR No.Pension-I/12/33/EPS Amendment/96Vol.II Dated : 31.05.2017 To All Accs (Zonal Offices) All Regional PF Commissioner (In-charge of Regions), All Officers - in - charge of SROs.

Subject : Allowing members of the EPS' 95 the benefit of the actual salary in the pension fund exceeding wage limit of either Rs.5000/- or Rs.6500/- per month from the effective dated respectively as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order in Civil Appeal No (S) 10013-10014 of 2016 arising out of SLP No.3302-33033 of 2015-Reg. Sir, Please arrange to refer this office letter No.Pension 1/12 (33/EPF/Amendments /96/Vol.I dated 23.03.2017 on the above cited subject. Many references have been received from field officers to confirm to the aforesaid circular dated 23.03.2017 is applicable to employees of EPF exempted establishment in the context, it is

informed as under.

i. Approval to comply with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri R.C.Gupta and others is only in respect of the Provident Fund & Pension members whose accounts are maintained by EPFO and whose PF contribution on higher wages has been received by EPFO.

ii. All the appellant employees in the aforesaid case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were from unexempted establishment i.e., an establishment making P.F.Contributions in the statutory Provident Fund managed by EPFO. The employer's contribution of 12% under the Act in respect of the said employees was on actual salary and not on the ceiling limit of either Rs.5000/- or Rs.6,500/-.

iii. Exercise of option under para 26(6) of the EPF scheme, 1952 is a precursor to exercise of opinion under proviso to clause 11 (3) of the pension scheme. The appellant employees in the aforesaid case had exercised option under para 26

(6) of the EPF scheme and contribution on full salary was received in the statutory Provident Fund.

iv. Employee's pension scheme remittances are being made by the establishments and not by the exempted Trusts. As such if establishments with exempted trusts are allowed to make balance remittance on full salary to the Employees pension scheme afresh, the same will have to be considered for unexempted establishments also. It is not contemplated in the Judgment.

v. In the case of exempted establishments the Provident Fund and Pension Fund are managed by separate legal entitles. The Provident Fund of employees of exempted establishments are managed by exempted Trusts and pension fund is managed by EPFO. As such, adjustment of contribution from Provident Fund Account to Pension Accounts as contemplated in the Judgment is not possible. The matter was placed in the 40th PEIC meeting. As decided in the 40th meeting of the PEIF the matter will be placed before the CBT. In the interim is a advised that no member of EPS 95 whose contribution of full salary has not been received on the account of the IPCO at the respective periods of contribution shall be eligible for the benefits contemplated in the

Judgment as per the aforesaid Hon'ble Supreme Court.

This issues with the approval of CPFC Yours faithfully, (Mukesh Kumar) Regional PF Commissioner-I (Pension)"

18. According to the EPFO, in case of exempted establishments, the Provident Fund and the Pension Fund are managed by separate legal entitles, namely, the Provident Fund of employees of exempted establishments is managed by exempted Trusts and Pension Fund is managed by the EPFO and as such, adjustment of contribution from Provident Fund Account to Pension Accounts as contemplated in the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgment is not feasible or possible.

19. The above Circular/instructions issued by the EPFO is the subject matter to challenge in most of the present Writ Petitions filed by the employees of exempted establishments.

20. According to the learned Senior Counsels and the learned counsels appearing for the employees of the exempted establishments, the impugned Circular dated 31.5.2017 cannot be countenanced either in law or on facts for the simple reason that no matter whether PF trust is maintained by the respective establishments, the Pension Scheme 1995 is the same for all the employees and they formed a homogeneous group and it is not open to the EPFO to make an artificial classification as between the employees of the exempted establishments and the employees of the unexempted establishments. Moreover the Circular dated 31.5.2017 is without the authority of law and without consultation of the Government of India.

The learned counsels would submit that it is an admitted case that even in respect of the exempted establishments, the contribution of 12% was paid on the basis of actual salaries received by the employees and a separate fund has been maintained by the respective establishments under the supervision and control of the EPFO. Although the establishment was allowed to maintain its own Trust in respect of Provident Fund contribution, in fact, it was under the control of EPFO as the Act and the Schemes have several provisions wherein the control of the EPFO on such private trust is real and actual.

pensionary benefits. In fact, the private trust maintained by the respective exempted establishments in regard to the receipt of Provident Fund contribution, the same can be invested only as per the directives of the EPFO or as laid down by the Government of India, and the respective establishments have no independent power to invest the contribution on their own accord. Therefore, practically the exempted establishments are also under the control of the EPFO in respect of the Trust maintained by them in regard to Provident Fund contribution. In such scenario, it does not lie in the mouth of the EPFO to contend that the employees of the exempted establishments cannot be extended the benefit of calculation and payment for pension on the basis of actual salary received by them at the time of their retirement.

The learned counsels would reiterate the fact that as far as the exempted employees are concerned, they had paid 10% or 12% of Provident Fund contribution as the case may be, towards their contribution on the basis of actual salary received by them from time to time and it was not on the basis of the ceiling limit of either Rs.5000/- which was in force from 15.11.1995 to 31.5.2001 and Rs.6500/- from 1.6.2001 to 31.08.2014 and Rs.15000/- from 1.9.2014 onwards.

21. Once the exempted establishments had received the higher contribution than the ceiling limit prescribed by the provisions of the Act, the employees cannot be at fault and cannot be denied higher pension. This is particularly so when the EPFO has not granted exemption to these establishments under the Pension Scheme and also has not accepted the option in terms of proviso to Clause 11(3). As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also by the other High Courts, it is always open to the EPFO to demand for return of the higher PF contribution paid to the employees at the time of retirement to the extent of contribution paid on the basis of their actual salaries and such amount can be adjusted and off set while calculating and paying the pension on the basis of actual salary received by them at the time of retirement.

22. Mr.Balan Haridoss, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would draw the attention of this Court to a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "(2018) 6 SCC 195 (Paradeep Phosphates Limited versus State of Orissa and others)" wherein, particularly, he would draw reference to paragraph 20, which is extracted hereunder:

"20. Undoubtedly, it is a cardinal principle of law that beneficial laws should be construed liberally. The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is one of the welfare legislations which intends to provide and protect the benefits of the employees.

Hence, it shall be interpreted in a liberal and broad manner so that maximum benefits could reach to the employees. Any attempt to do strict interpretation would undermine the intention of the legislature. In a catena of cases, this Court has held that the welfare legislation shall be interpreted in a liberal way."

23. According to the learned counsel, the Act and the Scheme are beneficial piece of legislation and therefore, the Courts must always liberally construe the provisions in favour of the employees, any constricted construction of provisions would defeat the very scheme of such beneficial legislation. As regards the classification between the unexempted and exempted establishments, the learned counsel would rely on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in "(2013) 2 SCC 772 (Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Offcials Association, Tamil Nadu and others versus State of Tamil Nadu, etc.) , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has has held in paragraphs 32 and 33 as under:

"32. First and foremost, it needs to be understood that the quantum of discrimination, is irrelevant to a challenge based on a plea of arbitrariness, under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14of the Constitution of India ensures to all, equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The question is of arbitrariness and discrimination. These rights flow to an individual under Articles 14 and16 of the Constitution of India.

The extent of benefit or loss in such a determination is irrelevant and inconsequential. The extent to which a benefit or loss actually affects the person concerned, cannot ever be a valid justification for a court in either granting or denying the claim raised on these counts. The rejection of the claim of the by the High Court, merely on account of the belief that the carry home pension for employees who would retire after 1.6.1988, would be trivially lower than those retiring prior thereto, amounts to bagging the issue pressed before the High Court. The solitary instance referred to above, which is not a matter of dispute even at the hands of the first clearly demonstrates, that in a given situation, an employee retiring on or after1.6.1988 could suffer

a substantial loss, in comparison to an employee retiring before 1.6.1988. We are, therefore satisfied, that the High Court clearly erred while determining the issue projected before it.

33. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification(see, State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310). A valid classification is based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes, the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment, over others.

classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective. And secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved.Legalistically, the test for a valid classification may be summarized as, a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship the object sought to be achieved. Whenever a cut off date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification (or valid discrimination) must necessarily be satisfied."

24. The learned counsel would submit that the distinction sought to be made by the Organization is neither intelligible nor constitutionally valid and hence the impugned order of rejectiion by the EPFO has to be necessarily held to be invalid and void.

25. Mr.Karthick, learned Senior Counsel would add that a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in W.P.(C) No.13120 of 2015 was called upon to decide the amendment brought about by the Employees' Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 by reviewing the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme wherein, the ceiling limit has been brought in of Rs.15,000/- and proviso to Clause 11(3) providing for payment of contribution in regard to the pension on the basis of actual salary received by the

employees concerned stood deleted. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court has dealt with all the objections and finally held that the amendment brought in Employees' Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 dated 22.8.2014 is invalid and such amendment was also set aside by the Division Bench. In that context, the learned Division Bench of Kerala High Court has dealt with entitlement of the pension on the basis of actual salary received by them and the observations and findings made by the Division Bench of Kerala High Court as found in paragraphs 32 to 38, are extracted hereunder:

32. The Apex Court has thus found the insistence on a date for exercise of the joint option to be without any justification. In other words, the proviso to paragraph 11 of the Pension Scheme does not stipulate a cut off date at all. Any such stipulation of a cut off date for conferring benefits under the Pension Scheme would have the effect of classifying the employees into persons who have retired before or after the said date.

33. As per the amendments, the maximum pensionable salary has been fixed at Rs.15,000/- thereby disentitling the persons who have contributed on the basis of their actual salaries to any benefits on the basis of the excess contributions made by them. The said provision is arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The employees, who have been making contributions on the basis of their actual salaries after submitting a joint option with their employers as required by the Pension Scheme, are denied the benefits of their contributions by the said amendments without any justification. Apart from the above, to cap the salary at Rs. 15,000/- for quantifying pension is absolutely unrealistic. A monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- works out only to about Rs.500/- per day.

It is common knowledge that, even a manual labourer is paid more than the said amounts as daily wages. Therefore, to limit the maximum salary at Rs.15,000/- for pension would deprive most of the employees of a decent pension in their old age. Since the pension scheme is intended to provide succour to the retired employees, the said object would be defeated by capping the salary. The duty of the trustees of the Fund is to administer the same for the benefit of the employees - by wise investments and efficient management.

on the ground that the fund would get depleted. The demand of additional payment of 1.16% of their salaries exceeding Rs.15,000/- is unsustainable for the reason that, Section 6A does not require the employees to make any additional contribution to constitute the Pension Fund. Nor does it empower the authorities to demand additional contribution. In the absence of any statutory backing, the said provision in the Pension Scheme is ultra vires. The amendment in so far as it stipulates the average monthly pay drawn over a span of 60 months preceding the date of exit as the pensionable service is also arbitrary for the reason that it deprives the employees of a substantial portion of the pension to which they would have been eligible had it not been for the amendment.

The provision as it originally stood stipulated computation of pensionable salary on the basis of the monthly pay drawn over a period of 12 months prior to their exit. The reason for the amendments as disclosed by the counter affidavit filed is that payment of pension on the basis of the Scheme as it stood prior to the amendment would result in depletion of the Fund. Absolutely no material or data to support the above contention has been placed before us. On the contrary, placing reliance on a news report carried by "The Hindu" newspaper on 17.8.2014, it is contended by the petitioners that, a staggering amount of Rs.

32,000 Crores of unclaimed amount is lying in various inoperative accounts across the country, as unclaimed pension as disclosed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner at an interactive session with employees at Hyderabad. In the absence of any material to support the contention that the fund is likely to be depleted, we reject the said contention. Apart from the above, there is no provision in the Act that stipulates the pension payments to commensurate with the amounts actually remitted by an employee and his employer. It is also a fact that the administrators of the Fund invest the amounts and generate profit from such investments.

34. Apart from the above it is common knowledge that, the salary of all employees have gone up to such an extent that, at present even a Class-IV employee or a person employed in Menial jobs would be drawing salaries far in excess of the celing limit of Rs.6500/-. Therefore, to cap the

salary at Rs.6500/- for the purpose of contributions is unrealistic. The authorities are turning a blind eye to the realities in the society by doing so. The further contention that the ceiling limit was intended to cater to the lower wage earners also has to be rejected for the reason that no such intention is discernible from the provisions of the Act. There would be no employee below the said ceiling limit, at present. Consequently, the allegation that there would be reverse subsidization is ill conceived.

35. It cannot be disputed that, the work force in our country has only been growing in numbers with more and more establishments springing into existence and getting covered by the provisions of the EPF Act. The contributions paid by them on the basis of the actual salaries drawn by the employees are constantly adding to the base of the fund. Such process of accretion is a continuing phenomenon. Therefore, there is no evidence of the fact that the fund is getting depleted by the payment of pension, as alleged. At the same time, the Statistics only prove otherwise. It is commonly accepted that the fund base has only grown over the years by the accumulation of EPF contributions.

36. Considering the fact that, the pension fund is created for the purpose of providing succour to the employees in the their old age, taking into account the further fact that the fund is created by collecting contributions from the employers and employees, casting no financial burden on the State, it follows that no scheme that defeats the purpose of the enactment by reducing the pension payable to the employees in their old age to a ridiculously low amount, which is not sufficient even for ensuring a decent life to them, cannot be sustained. There is no justification for stealing bread from the mouths of the pensioners to secure the Pension Fund. Though the Fund is replenished by the present workers, its beneficiaries are the old and infirm former workers; the pensioners. The Fund is meant for their sustenance. It is the duty of the Central Board to administer the Fund efficiently and to augment the Fund through wise investments and professional management so as to ensure that it meets the commitment to pay pension to the

employees. The said amendments are therefore ultravires the power to frame schemes.

37. The stated objective of the amendments is to prevent depletion of the fund. The said apprehension is absolutely baseless for the reasons stated above. The number of persons who are contributing to the Provident Fund as well as the Pension Fund have only grown over the years. The work force in our country would only grow further in the future. It has to be stated here that in view of the increase in the number of workers over the years, the contributions would also grow. The phenomenon is only bound to continue in future. Therefore, even when payments of pension are made to the retired employees, the pension fund would continue to get replenished with the contributions of the new entrants. The said ongoing process would maintain the Fund in a stable condition.

If at all, a situation where the Fund base gets eroded occurs, the situation could be remedied at that time by enhancing the rates of contributions of persons contributing to the Fund through a legislative exercise. The attempt to maintain the stability of the fund by reducing the pension would only be counter productive and would defeat the very purpose of the enactment.

38. As rightly contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioners, the effect of the amendments to the Pension Scheme is to create different classes of pensioners on the basis of the date, 1.9.2014, the date on which the amended Scheme came into force. Consequently, there would be - (i) employees who have exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme and continuing in service as on 1.9.2014;

(ii) employees who have not exercised their option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme, and continuing in service as on 1.9.2014; (iii) employees who have retired prior to 1.9.2014 without exercising an option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme;

(iv) employees who have retired prior to 1.9.2014 after exercising the option under paragraph 11(3) of 1995 Scheme.

The rationale in so classifying the employees covered by the Pension Scheme on the basis of the above date is not forthcoming. The object sought to

be achieved is stated to be prevention of depletion of the Pension Fund, which cannot be accepted as a justification to support the classification. Inasmuch as the statutory scheme is to make the Pension Fund enure to the benefit of the homogeneous class of the totality of employees covered by the Provident Fund, a further classification of the said class by formulating a Scheme is ultra vires the power available to the Central Government under Sections 5 and 7 of the EPF Act. Therefore, it has to be held that, the impugned amendments are arbitrary, ultra vires the EPF Act and unsustainable.

For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. The writ petitions are all allowed as follows:

i) The Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 brought into force by Notification No. GSR. 609(E) dated 22.8.2014 evidenced by Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No. 13120 of 2015 is set aside;

ii) All consequential orders and proceedings issued by the Provident Fund authorities/respondents on the basis of the impugned amendments shall also stand set aside.

iii) The various proceedings issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization declining to grant opportunities to the petitioners to exercise a joint option along with other employees to remit contributions to the Employees Pension Scheme on the basis of the actual salaries drawn by them are set aside.

iv) The employees shall be entitled to exercise the option stipulated by paragraph 26 of the EPF Scheme without being restricted in doing so by the insistence on a date.

v) There will be no order as to costs."

26. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that even the amendment which was brought about to Employees Pension Scheme 2014 that capped monthly salary to be considered for contribution to pension scheme at Rs.15000/- instead of the actual salary, came to be struck down by the Kerala High Court in the above mentioned judgment, as far as the present Writ Petitions are concerned when the proviso was in the scheme to Clause 11(3) providing for option exercisable by the employees and such option cannot be restricted by a cut off date which cut off date was found to be invalid and void and in such circumstances, the employees of the exempted establishments are

entitled to be treated on par with the employees of the unexempted establishments and any such discrimination cannot be countenanced constitutionally.

27. Per contra, the learned counsels appearing for the EPFO would primarily submit that first of all these writ petitioners/employees admittedly did not exercise their option under Section 26(6) of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 and also under proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. According to the learned counsels appearing for the EPFO, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 'R.C.Gupta' case has clearly held that exercise of option under para 26(6) is a necessary pre-cursor to exercise optiion under proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme.

As regards exempted establishments, the question of exercising option under para 26

(6) of PF Scheme does not arise as these establishments have their own PF Scheme managed by their own private Trust. Therefore, the employees of such establishments cannot exercise their option under proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The learned counsels for the EPFO would uniformally contend that the issue of whether the employees of exempted establishments would also be covered by the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was not raised before the other High Courts and even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereby as on date, such an issue was not raised or answered.

Therefore, the learned counsels for the EPFO would urge this Court to consider their objections that the employees of the exempted establishments are materially different and they cannot be treated on par with the employees of unexempted establishments. Factually whatever their contribution towards provident fund was made only to the private Trust maintained by the establishments and not by the EPFO. Such higher contribution was not passed on to the EPFO in respect of the Pension Scheme, since admittedly 8.33% contribution has been remitted by the exempted establishments to the Pension Fund only on the basis of ceiling limit of Rs.5000/-, 6500/- and 15000/- as the case may be.

That being the case, the question of the EPFO extending the benefit of higher calculation for payment of pension on the basis of actual salary received by the employees would not arise. The question of book adjustment would not arise in this case since the EPF contribution and Pension Scheme are maintained by two different legal entitles, one private Trust and the other by the EPFO.

considerable erosion of the corpus fund maintained by the EPFO. This is because of the fact that the actual contribution on the higher salary has not been remitted to the Pension Account maintained by the EPFO for all those years when the employees of the exempted estalishments were in service and in the absence of remittances, the EPFO was precludedfrom investing the money and prevented from generating more revenue in order to sustain the Fund. According to the learned counsels for the EPFO, that today, practically whatever money to be returned by the employees on the above lines would be too low in comparison to what they are entitled to receive arrears of pension on the basis of higher salary earned by them at the time of their retirement, in which event, there would be complete depletion of pension fund and in such scenario, the persons affected would be the existing employees of various establishments who make contributions on the ceiling limit as prescribed by the Scheme.

28. In one of the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the EPFO, the above scenario is succinctly expressed with illustration as follows:

""v. If these employees of exempted establishments could have complied in the initial days of beginning of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the return on investment could have been on a much higher rate of return and for a longer period as the rate of interest in the late 1990's and early 2000's were around 12 to 14% whereas the current interest rate on investment is around 6%. Further, it would have yielded returns for future period also as EPFO investments are for longer tenure. As such deposit of the amount for past many years (having higher return regime) in the current low interest regime and paying pension on much higher wage for future (say 15 to 20 years) will be detrimental to the financial health of the pension fund. It is not just loss of past interest income, but erosion of corpus itself.

vi.It is stated that if a member is allowed to give option to contribute on higher wages in the pension scheme, retrospectively, it will amount to enhancing monthly pension of the member manifold without getting any contribution from him towards increased pension. This will be evident from the following live example where the member retired on 31.03.2011 and subsequently remitted contribution on higher wages in 2016.

Calculation of Pension:

Existing Revised (on higher wages) Pensionable Salary 78106 Pension as per formula 1613* 19384 Past service benefit Total pension 19697 *including weightage Amount remitted (contribution at 8.33% on higher wages with interest up to 10/2016 : Rs.7,64,971/- Arrears of Pension paid :

Rs.12,21,076/- Thus in this case the member received an amount of Rs.4,56,105/- up front as arrears of pension and his monthly pension was increased 10 times from Rs.1926 to Rs.19697, without practically paying single Rupee towards the enhanced pension in the Pension Scheme. The liability of this enhanced monthly pension will be borne by the members who are presently contributing to the pension scheme."

29. From the above illustration, the learned counsels would submit that the employees herein would be practically paying nothing, but they would be paid enhanced pension and the liability of the enhanced pension will be borne by the members who are presently contributing the pension scheme. This would be unjust enrichment which cannot be allowed. The learned counsel would also submit that the employees who had foresight to contribute higher contribution on the basis of their salary and invested their money by such contribution cannot be placed on par with these employees who have not exercised their option at all during the period of their employment and these employees have woken up only when the orders were passed by the Kerala High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The present claim, if it is going to considered favourably, would completely unsettle the Pension Fund maintained by the EPFO and the maintenance of such fund would be challenging as the EPFO may have to look at the Government for budgetery allocation in case of huge deficit in the Corpus Fund.

industry or the employees concerned and therefore, urge this Court to dismiss atleast the claims of the employees who are from the exempted establishments.

30. Mr.Ramu, learned counsel appearing for the EPFO would particularly draw the attention of this Court that once a member has retired from service, he ceased to be a member of the Fund. He would refer to Clause 2(iv) of the Pension Scheme which deals with 'Contributory Service' and also Clause 2(vi) (ix), (xiii) and (xv), which are extracted hereunder:

"2(iv) "Contributory service" means the period of 'actual service' rendered by a member for which the contributions to the fund have been 1[received or are receivable].

"2(vi) "Existing Member" means an existing employee who is a "Member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971";

"2(ix) "Member" means an employee who becomes a member of the Employees' Pension Fund in accordance with the provisions of this Scheme. "2(xiii) "Pay" means basic wages, with dearness allowance, retaining allowance and cash value of food concessions admissible, if any. "2(xv) "pensionable service" means the service rendered by the member for which contributions have been received or are receivable."

31. The learnd counsel would also rely on Clauses 3 and 6A of the Pension Scheme, which are extracted as under: "3. Employees' Pension Fund.- (1) From and out of the contributions payable by the employer in each month under Section 6 of the Act or under the rules of the Provident Fund of the establishment which is exempted either under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act or whose employees are exempted under either paragraph 27 or paragraph 27-A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, a part of contribution representing 8.33 per cent of the Employee's pay shall be remitted by the employer to the Employees' Pension fund within 15 days of the close of every month by a separate bank draft or cheque on account of the Employees' Pension Fund contribution in such manner as may

be specified in this behalf by the Commissioner. The cost of the remittance, if any, shall be borne by the employer.

(2) The Central Government shall also contribute at the rate of 1.16 per cent of the pay of the members of the Employees' Pension Scheme and credit the contribution to the Employees' Pension Fund: Provided that where the pay of the member exceeds 1[rupees six thousand and five hundred] per month the contribution payable by the employer and the Central Government be limited to the amount payable on his pay of 9[rupees six thousand and five hundred] only 9. Subs. by G.S.R.383 (E) dated the 24.5.2001 (w.e.f. 1.6.2001).

(3) Each contribution payable under subparagraphs (1) and (2) shall be calculated to the nearest rupee, fifty paise or more to be counted as the next higher rupee and fraction of a rupee less than fifty paise to be ignored. (4) The net assets of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 shall vest in and stand transferred to the Employees' Pension Fund."

......... ........

.........

"6-A. Retention of membership: A member of the Employees' Pension Fund shall continue to be such member till he attains the age of 58 years or he avails the withdrawal benefit to which he is entitled under para 14 of the Scheme, or dies, or the pension is vested in him in terms of para 12 of the Scheme, whichever is earlier."

32. Relying on the above, Mr.Ramu, learned counsel would submit that these employees have ceased to be the members of the Pension Fund on their retirement and therefore, they cannot claim to have any right to exercise their option after their retirement since they were not treated as members of the Pension Fund Scheme in order to consider their option.

33. All the learned counsels appearing for the EPFO would also uniformally and vehemently contend that a conscious decision has been taken by the EPFO by taking into consideration actuarial liability and the consequence of such enhanced pension to be paid to these writ petitioners as well as in view of large

scale outflow of fund for the retired employees more than the inflow of the fund from them, a decision has been taken not to extend the benefit as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the employees of the exempted establishments. In any event, such claim by the employees is incapable of compliance as it would expose the pension fund maintained by EPFO to depletion.

34. At this, the learned Senior Counsels as well as the other learned counsels appearing for the employes would submit that the question of financial implication need not be given undue importance for the simple reason that once the employees are entitled to be paid enhanced pension on the basis of right to be teated equally in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the question of consideration of financial implication would not be proper. Moreover, on behalf of the EPFO, nothing has been brought out in clear terms as to how the pension corpus would get depleted or eroded. No financial statement has ben filed in regard to the liability of the EPFO towards higher pension and what is inflow into the Pension Fund in regard to new employees being covered under the Pension Scheme as on date.

In the absence of any such details, merely by showing a stray illustration in the couner affidavit, cannot form a basis for rejection of the employees claim on the ground of financial crisis. Moreover, the enhanced pension payable to each of the employee is only during life term of the employee and such life time being unpredictable and the enhanced pension cannot be denied on the basis of so-called actuarial liability and risk on such payment from the pension fund.

35. The learned counsels appering for the employees would therefore submit that both set of employees, one from the exempted establishments and another from unexempted establishments are entitled to be paid pension on exercising their option in terms of Proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme and the employees in order to receive higher pension are willing to return the excess provident fund contribution received by them to the extent which were contributed on the basis of their actual salaries received by them with reasonable interest.

The learned counsels at the same time would also urge this Court that the EPFO may be directed to calculate the excess Provident Fund amoiunt to be returned with the interest to be fixed by this Court and on the basis of arrival at a particular figure, the amount to be returned by the employee concerned shall be be adjusted with the amount payable by the EPFO to the employees towards enhanced pension.

case the employees are to receive more quantum by way of arrears of pension than what is to be returned by them to EPFO, the same may be adjusted and the remaining amount to be paid to the respective employees.

36. Heard the learned Senior Counsels and the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. On conclusion of the arguments, this Court has bestowed upon itself its anxious consideration to various submissions made on behalf of the writ petitioners/employees and also on behalf of the EPFO which would touch upon the following salient points for consideration of this Court, viz., 1.

Whether the employees of unexempted establishments are also entitled to higher pension on the basis of their contribution towards Provident Fund paid to them over and above the ceiling limit as prescribed in the Act, PF Scheme and the Pension Scheme without reference to the cut off date as 01.12.2004 for exercising the option by the employees?

2.

Whether these employees' right to receive higher pension has crystallized by the legal principles as laid down by the various High Courts as aforementioned and also by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'R.C.Gupta case? 3.

Whether in regard to unexempted establishments, the issue is still open for adjudication by this Court in view of the law laid down by the various High Courts on the subject matter including the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C.Gupta case?

4. Whether the writ petitioners who are from the exempted establishments are any way different from beneficiaries of the orders passed by the High Courts of Kerala, Telangana, Rajasthan and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or they form a homogeneous group?

(OR) whether the employees from the exempted establishements can be treated materially different within the frame work of EPF Act, PF Scheme 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme 1995?

37. POINT NO.1:

"Whether the employees of unexempted establishments are also entitled to higher pension on the basis of their contribution towards Provident Fund paid to them over and above the ceiling limit as prescribed in the Act and the Pension Scheme, PF Scheme and the Pension Scheme without reference to the cut off date as 01.12.2004 for exercising the option by the employees? ?"

In regard to the above issue, this Court has to consider as to what is the substance of the resistance to the claim of these employees by the EPFO. As far as this Court could see from the submissions and pleadings placed on record that the cut off date was prescribed by EPFO as 01.12.2004 for exercising the option in terms of proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. The said cut off date was the subject matter of challenge inter alia before the Kerala High Court and a learned single Judge of Kerala High Court in his order dated 4.11.2011 has held that the scheme does not contain any provision enabling the EPFO to prescribe any cut off date. The particular paragraph, i.e. Para 4 in which such finding given by the learned single Judge of the Keral High Court is extracted herein once again for the purpose of giving a finding for the present claim.

"4. The second objection is regarding the cut off date fixed. According to the Provident Fund Organization a cut off date of 1.12.2004 has been fixed for applying for benefit of the proviso by changing over to payment of contributions on actual salary basis. But the Provident Fund Organization has not been able to produce any document by which such a cut off date has been fixed by anybody. The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme and the Employees' Pension Scheme do not contain any provision enabling the 2nd respondent or anybody else to fix a cut off date for the purpose of availing of the benefit of proviso to clause 11(3). Even assuming that anybody has any power to fix that cut off date, certainly it is not the 2nd respondent. As such I am convinced that the cut off date fixed by the 2nd respondent is clearly without jurisdiction. That being so, the benefits already granted to the

petitioners under the proviso to clause 11(3) cannot now be reversed or withdrawn as done in this case.

38. Admittedly, the order of the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A.No.569 of 2012 by its judgment dated 5.3.2013, holding that the learned single Judge has correctly understood and decided the issue regarding the cut off date. In fact, the Division Bench has also given a detailed reasoning as to how such a cut off date is legally impermissible in paragraph 10, which once again is extracted hereunder:

"10. According to us, the learned Single Judge has correctly understood and decided the issue regarding the cut off date fixed. According to the Provident Fund Organisation, cut off date of 1/12/2004 has been fixed for applying for benefit of the proviso by changing over to payment of contributions on actual salary basis. It was noticed by the learned Single Judge that no document by which such a cut off date has been fixed by anybody is produced by the Provident Fund Organisation. The Employees' Provident Fund Scheme and the Employees' Pension Scheme also do not contain any provision enabling the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or anybody else to fix a cut off date for the purpose of availing of the benefit of proviso to clause 11(3). According to us, the decision of the learned Single Judge that - even assuming that anybody has power to fix that cut off date, certainly such power is not with the 2nd respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, is quite correct.

39. The Division Bench order of the Kerala High Court ultimately was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India where SLP filed against the order came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.3.3016 finding that there was no valid ground for interference. Therefore, in all fours, the exclusion of the employees from unexempted establishments from the purview of grant of higher pension on the basis of actual salaries received by them, cannot be countenanced both in law and on facts.

40. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C.Gupta case, has held that the beneficial scheme ought not be defeated by referring to cut off date particularly when the employer had deposited 12% of

the actual salary and not 12% of the ceiling limit of Rs.5000/- or Rs.6500/- per month, as the case may be. Once the cut off date has no sanctity in law and allowed the claim of the employees, the issue is no more res integra and therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the EPFO today to argue against the grant of relief to the employees who are from unexempted establishments. Therefore, this Court hold the first Point in favour of the emplouyees from the unexempted establishments as the resistance put up by the EPFO has no legal legs to stand. Therefore, it is concluded that the employees of the unexempted establishments are entitled to higher pension on the basis of their contribution towards Provident Fund on the actual salaries received by them at the time of their retirement.

41. POINT NO.2:

"Whether these employees' right to receive higher pension has crystallized by the legal principles as laid down by the various High Courts as aforementioned and also by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'R.C.Gupta case?"

As regards the above issue is concerned, in view of the categoric pronouncement by a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court which was confirmed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and dismissal of the SLP preferred by the EPFO and the extension of benefits of higher pension to thousands of employees in pursuance of the orders of the Kerala High Court and of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the right of these employees from unexempted establishments has crystallized beyond any controversy or dispute. Once the Hon'ble Supreme Court has rendered a decisioin on the subject matter, which becomes the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and such declaration of law would cover every employee in every corner of the country. Therefore, the writ petitioners from unexempted establishments have a right to claim enhanced pension if they are willing to exercise their option as per proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Denial of parity in this regard would offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

42. POINT NO.3:

Whether in regard to unexempted establishments, the issue is still open for adjudication by this Court in view of the law laid down by the various High Courts on the

subject matter including the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C.Gupta case?

Although stiff resistance was put up by the EPFO in regard to grant of relief to the employees even from the unexempted establishments as if these employees were different in status as that of employees covered by the orders passed by the Kerala High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the fact remains that these employees are not different from the employees who are the beneficiaries of the orders of the Kerala High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, this Court is unable to comprehend as to the legal basis for EPFO to question the claim of these writ petitioners when the EPFO itself was a party to all the litigations afore mentioned and the matter has reached its finality in favour of the employees.

In fact, admittedly, the EPFO itself has extended the benefit in terms of the order of the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court to thousands of employees and therefore, any semblance of resistance put up by the EPFO against the claim of these categories of employees, is amounted to patent discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

In view of the above conclusion by this Court, the issue of grant of enhanced pension to this set of employees from unexempted establishments, is not still open for this Court to adjudicate as the dispute is no more alive seeking any further resolution of the same as the issue has already been settled categorically in favour of the employees, which means, the issue of grant of higher pension to the employees of unexempted establishments on the basis of their option for payment of higher contribution on the basis of actual salary received by them, is no more res integra and the writ petitioners who are the employees of the unexmpted establishments are also entitled to be treated on par with other similarly placed employees who are beneficiaries of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C.Gupta case for grant of enhanced pension.

44. POINT NO.4:

"Whether the writ petitioners who are from the exempted establishments are any way different from beneficiaries of the orders passed by the High Courts of Kerala, Telangana, Rajasthan and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India or they form a homogeneous group?

(OR) whether the employees from the exempted establishements can be treated materially different within the frame work of EPF Act, PF Scheme 1952 and the Employees Pension Scheme 1995?

As regards the employees of exempted establishments are concerned, the EPFO has vehemently opposed for grant of any relief to them on the basis of the orders passed by the Kerala High Court and also on the basis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in R.C.Gupta case and also on the basis of other High Courts decisions, viz., Telengana, Rajasthan, etc. According to the learned counsels appearing for the EPFO, the issue of treating the employees of the exempted establishments on par with the employees of unexempted establishments was not specifically raised and answered by the Courts and therefore, the said issue needs to be examined by this Court.

According to the learned counsels, the exempted establishements cannot be placed on par with the unexempted establishments for the various reasons as stated above and therefore, the employees of such exempted employees cannot draw parallel as to that of the employees of unexempted establishments in the matter of extension of benefit of higher pension. This Court, therefore, has to see whether the employees of the exempted establishments can be placed on par with the employees of unexempted establishments for the purpose of extending the benefit of higher pension and whether the parity as between the exempted and unexempted employees would be permissible within the constitutional frame work and statutory scheme.

No doubt that the employees of the exempted establishments whose Provident Fund is maintained by Private Trust of the respective establishements and out of Provident Fund paid to the Private Trust, only 8.33% is remitted to the Pension Fund maintained by the EPFO on the basis of the ceiling limit of salary i.e. 5000/-, 6500/- or 15000/- per month as the case may be. However, ultimately, the essence of the scheme and the right of the employees need to be seen in the larger context of the Act, PF Scheme as well as the Pension Scheme.

45. As rightly contended by the learned counsels for the employees that although the exempted establishments are allowed to have their own Private Trust for their Provident Fund contribution, nevertheless such fund is essentially controlled and supervised by the EPFO under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. In fact, the exemption as given under Section 17 of the Act is only on the basis of the fact where the rates of

contribution were not less favourable than those specified in Section 6 of the Act. Section 17 along with proviso, is extracted as under:

"17. Power to exempt.

- (1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, exempt, whether prospectively or retrospectively, from the operation] of all or any of the provisions of any Scheme- (a) any establishment to which this Act applies if, in the opinion of the appropriate Government, the rules of its provident fund with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable than those specified in section 6 and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits which on the whole are not less favourable to the employees than the benefits provided under this Act or any Scheme in relation to the employees in any other establishment of a similar character; or (b) Any establishment if the employees of such establishment are in enjoyment of benefits in the nature of provident fund, pension or gratuity and the appropriate Government is of opinion that such benefits, separately or jointly, are on the whole not less favourable to such employees than the benefits provided under this Act or any Scheme in relation to employees in any other establishment of a similar character.

Provided that no such exemption shall be made except after consultation with the Central Board which on such consultation shall forward its views on exemption to the appropriate Government within such time limit as may be specified in the Scheme.

(1-A) where an exemption has been granted to an establishment under clause (a) of subsection (1)- (a) The provisions of section 6, 7A, 8 and 14B shall, so far as may be, apply to the employer of the exempted establishment in addition to such other conditions as may be specified in the notification grating such exemption, and where such employer contravenes, or make default in

complying with any of the said provisions or conditions or any other provisions of this Act, he shall be punishable under section 14 as if the said establishment had not been exempted under the said clause (a); (b) The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees for the administration of the provident fund consisting of such number of member as may be specified in the Scheme; (c) The terms and conditions of service of members of the Board of Trustees shall be such as may be specified in the Scheme; (d) The Board of Trustees constituted under clause (b) shall- (i) Maintain detailed accounts to show the contributions credited, withdrawals made and interest accrued in respect of each employee; (ii) Submit such returns to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or any other officer as the Central Government may direct from time to time; (iii) Invest the provident fund monies in accordance with the directions issued by the Central Government from time to time; (iv) Transfer, where necessary, the provident fund account of any employee; and (v) Perform such other duties as may be specified in the Scheme."

27AA. Terms and conditions of exemption.- All exemptions already granted or to be granted hereafter under section 17 of the Act or under paragraph 27A of the scheme shall be subject to the terms and conditions as given in the Appendix A.

APPENDIX "A"

1. The employer shall establish a Board of Trustees under his Chairmanship for the management of the Provident Fund according to such directions as may be given by the Central Government or the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, as the case may be, from time to time. The Provident Fund shall vest in the Board of Trustees who will be responsible for and accountable to the employees' Provident Fund

Organisation, inter alia, for proper accounts of the receipts into and payment from the Provident fund and the balance in the custody. For the purpose, the "employer" shall meani) i) in relation to an establishment, which is factory, the owner or occupier of the factory; and ii) In relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority, that has the ultimate control over the affarirs of the establishments.

2. The Board of Trustees shall meet atleast once in every three months and shall function in the accordance with the guidelines that may be issued from time to time by the Central Government/Central Provident Fund Commissioner (CPFC) or an officer authorized by him.

3. All employees, as defined in section 2(f) of the Act, who have been eligible to become members of the Provident Fund, had the establishment not been granted exemption, shall be enrolled as members.

4. Where an employee who is already a member of Employees' Provident Fund or a provident fund of any other emempted establishment is employed in his establishment, the employer shall immediately enroll him as a member of the fund. The employer should also arrange to have the accumulations in the provident fund account of such employee with his previous employer transferred and credited into his account.

5. the employer shall transfer to the Board of Trustees the contributions payable to the provident fund by himself and employees at the rate prescribed under the Act from time to time by the 15th of each month following the month for which the contributions are payable. The employer shall be liable to pay simple interest in terms of the provisions of section 7Q of the Act for any delay in payment of any dues towards the Board of Trustees.

6. The employer shall bear all the expenses of the administration of the Provident Fund and also make good any other loss that may be caused

to the Provident Fund due to theft, burglary, defalcation, misappropriation or any other reason.

7. Any deficiency in the interest declared by the Board of Trustees is to be made good by the employer to bring it up the statutory limit.

8. The employer shall display on the notice board of the establishment, a copy of the rules of the funds as approved by the appropriate authority and as and when amended thereto along with a translation in the language of the majority of the employees.

9. the rate of contribution payable, the conditions and quantum of advances and other matters laid down under the provident fund rules of the establishment and the interest credited to the account of each member, calculated on the monthly running balance of the member and declared by the Board of Trustees shall not be lower than those declared by the Central Government under the various provisions prescribed in the Act and the Scheme framed there under.

10. Any amendment to the Scheme, which is more beneficial to the employees than the existing rules of the establishment, shall be made applicable to them automatically pending formal amendment of the Rules of the Trust.

11. No amendment in the rules shall be made by the employer without the prior approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (referred to as RPFC hereafter). The RPFC shall before giving his approval give a reasonable opportunity to the employees to explain their point of view.

12. All claims for withdrawals, advance and transfer should be settled expeditiously, within the maximum time frame prescribed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation.

13.

The Board of Trustees shall maintain detailed accounts to show the contribution credited, withdrawal and interest in respect of each employee. The maintenance of such records should preferably be done electronically.

The establishments should periodically transmit the details of members' accounts electronically as and when direct by the CPFC/RPFC.

14. The Board of Trustees shall issue an annual statement of accounts or pass books to every employee within six months of the close of financial/accounting year free of cost once in the year. Additional printouts can be made available as and when the members want, subject to nominal charges. In case of passbook, the same shall remain in custody of employee to be updated periodically by the trustees when presented to them.

15. the employer shall make necessary provisions to enable all the members to be able to see their account balance from the computers terminals as and when required by them.

16. The Board of Trustees and the employer shall file such returns monthly/annually as may be prescribed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organization within the specified time-limit, failing which it will be deemed as a default and the Board of Trustees and employer will jointly and separately be liable for suitable penal action by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation. Provided that above mentioned return shall be filed by the employer in electronic format also, in such form and manner, as may be specified by the Commissioner.

17. the Board of Trustees shall invest the monies of the provident fund as per the directions of the government from time to time. Failure to make investments as per directions of the Government shall made the Board of Trustees separately and jointly liable to surcharge as may be imposed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner or his representative.

18. (a) The securities shall be obtained in the name of Trust. The securities so obtained should be in dematerialized (DEMAT) form and in case the required facility is not available in the area where the trust operates, the Board of Trustees shall inform the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner concerned about the same. b) the Board of Trustees shall maintain a script wise register and ensure timely realization of interest. c) The DEMAT Account should be opened through depository participants approved by Reserve Bank of India and Central Government in

accordance with the instruction issued by the Central government in this regard. d) The cost of maintaining DEMAT account should be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust. Also all types of Cost of investment like brokerage for purchase of securities etc. shall be treated as incidental cost of investment by the Trust.

19. All such investment6 made, like purchase of securities and bonds, should be lodged in the safe custody of depository participants, approved by reserve bank of India and Central Government, who shall be the custodian of the same. On closure of establishment or liquidation or cancellation of exemption from EPF Scheme, 1952, such custodian shall transfer the investment obtained in the name of the Trust and standing in its credit to the RPFC concerned directly on receipt of request from the RPFC concerned to that effect.

20. The exempted establishment shall intimate to the RPFC concerned the details of depository participants (approved by the Reserve Bank of India and Central Government), with whom and in whose safe custody, the investments made in the name of trust, viz., Investments made in securities, bonds, etc. have been lodged. However, the Board of Trustees may raise such sum or sums of money as may be required for meeting obligatory expenses such as settlement of claims, grant of advances as per rules and transfer of member's P.F. accumulations in the events of his/her leaving service of the employer and any other receipts by sale of the securities or other investments standing in the name of the Fund subject to the prior approval of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 21. Any commission, incentive, bonus, or other pecuniary rewards given by any financial or other institutions for the investments made by the Trust should be credited to its account.

22. The employer and the members of the Board of Trustees, at the time of grant of exemption, shall furnish a written undertaking to the RPFC in such format as may be prescribed from time to time, inter alia, agreeing to abide by the conditions which are specified and this shall be legally binding on the employer and Board of Trustees, including

their successors and assignees, or such conditions as may be specified latter for continuation of exemption.

23. The employer and the Board of Trustees shall also give an undertaking to transfer the funds promptly within the time limit prescribed by the concerned RPFC in the event of cancellation of exemption. This shall be legally binding on them and will make them liable for prosecution in the event of any delay in the transfer of funds.

24. (a) The account of the Provident Fund maintained by the Board of Trustees shall be subject to audit by a qualified independent chartered accountant annually. Where considered necessary, the CPFC or the RPFC in-charge of the Region shall have the right to have the accounts re-audited by any other qualified auditor and the expenses so incurred shall be borne by the employer. (b) A copy of the Auditor's report along with the audited balance sheet should be submitted to the RPFC concerned by the Auditors directly within six months after the closing of the financial year from 1st April to 31st March. The format of the balance sheet and the information to be furnished in the report shall be as prescribed by the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and made available with the RPFC Office in electronic format as well as a signed hard copy. (c) The same auditors should not be appointed for two consecutive years and not more than two years in a block of six years.

25. A company reporting loss for three consecutive financial years or erosion in their capital base shall have their exemption withdrawn from the first day of the next/succeeding financial year.

26.The employer in relation to the exempted establishment shall provide for such facilities for inspection and pay such inspection charges as the Central Government may from time to time direct under clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 17 of the Act within 15 days from the close of every month.

27. In the event of any violation of the conditions for grant of exemption, by the employer or the Board of Trustees, the exemption granted may be cancelled after issuing a show cause notice in this regard to the concerned persons.

28. In the event of any loss to the trust as a result of any fraud, defalcation, wrong investment decisions etc. the employer shall be liable to make good the loss.

29. In case of any change of legal status of the establishment, which has been granted exemption, as a result of merger, demerger, acquisition, sale amalgamation, formation of a subsidiary, whether wholly owned or not, etc., the exemption granted shall stand revoked and the establishment should promptly report the matter to the RPFC concerned for grant of fresh exemption.

30. In case, there are more than one unit/establishment participating in the common Provident Fund Trust which has been granted exemption, all the trustees shall be jointly and separately liable/responsible for any default committed by any of the trustees/employer of any of the participating units and the RPFC shall take suitable legal action against all the trustees of the common Provident Fund Trust.

31. The Central government may lay down any further condition for continuation of exemption of the establishments."

46. From the above, it could be seen that these establishments have rates of contribution towards Provident Fund more favourable to the employees than what is provided under the Act or atleast not less than what is provided under the Act in which extent, whether the employees of such establishments can be allowed to suffer disadvantageous position vis-à-vis the employees of the unexempted establishments in the matter of calculation and payment of pension under the Pension Scheme, the answer would be obviously 'no' for the following reasons, viz., Firstly, the fact of the matter is that Pension Fund maintained by the respective establishments cannot be independently handled

or operated as the respective exempted establishments deem fit. The Fund is always subject to the pervasive control and supervision of the EPFO and operation of the same is also guided as per the provisions of the PF Scheme. Each and every action of the private Trust of the exempted establishments is to be scrutinized and monitored by the EPFO/Government. The control over such Trusts is not nominal but real and ubiquitous. In fact, the only palpable difference is that private Trust maintained by the respective establishements, absolves the EPFO of burden of maintaining the day-to-day accounts of such establishments. In the said circumstances, the exempted establishments cannot be treated differently for the purpose of extending the benefit of higher pension to the employees of such establishments. A differential classification of such establishments is a specious distinction which cannot stand the test of constitutional scrutiny.

Secondly, it is an admitted fact which cannot be disputed which this Court finds based on the materials produced that the employees of these establishments have paid contribution on the basis of actual salary received by them. It was not their fault that the respective private Trusts have not remitted the enhanced Provident Fund contribution to the Pension Fund maintained by the EPFO. Further, the exempted establishments even otherwise was prevented from time to time from making 8.33% remittances into the Pension Fund on the basis of higher contribution made by their employees, as no option was obtained by them under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme.

In any event, non-remittance by the exempted establishments into the Pension Fund on the basis of higher Provident Fund contribution by the employees commensurate with the actual salaries received by them, cannot result in negation of the employees' right to exercise their option for payment of enhanced pension with reference to Proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Thirdly, the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 is the same for all the employees regardless of their employment in either exempted establishments or unexempted establishements. Once the Pension Scheme does not make a distinction as a whole, the question of treating the employees from the exempted establishments would be constitutionally impermissible and statutorily unacceptable.

"39. Exemption from the operation of the Pension Scheme.-

The appropriate Government may grant exemption to any establishment or class of establishments from the operation of this Scheme, if the employees of the establishments are either members of any other pension scheme or proposed to be members of a pension scheme wherein the pensionary benefits are at par or more favourable than the benefits provided under this Scheme. Where exemption is granted to any establishment or class of establishments under this paragraph, withdrawal benefits available to the credit of the employees of such establishment(s) under the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971, shall be paid, subject to the consent of the employees, to the pension fund of the establishment(s) so exempted.

An application for exemption under this paragraph shall be presented to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner having jurisdiction by the establishment or class of establishments, together with a copy of the pension scheme of the establishment (s) and other relevant documents, as may be called for by him. On receipt of such an application, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall scrutinise it, obtain the recommendations of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner and submit the same to the appropriate Government for decision, pending disposal of application for exemption under this paragraph employers' share of the contribution shall not be remitted to the pension fund as envisaged in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3.

An application for exemption presented under this paragraph shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of its receipt or such further time as may be extended for reasons to be recorded in writing. If the application for exemption is not disposed of within the period so specified, the exemption applied for shall be deemed to have been granted.

Explanation. - For the purpose of this paragraph, the period of six months will count from the date on which the application for exemption is given in compete form to the satisfaction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner."

In the absence of exemption to the Pension Scheme, all the establishments regardless of exemption granted under the Provident Funds Scheme or the Act, are to be treated alike and in which event, the employees of the exempted establishments cannot be placed on disadvantageous position in the matter of receipt of enhanced pension than the employees of the unexempted establishments. Once the Pension Scheme is same for all the employees, they formed a homogeneous group and any distinction to be drawn as between the same set of employees would amount to invidious discrimination and such attempted classification by the EPFO is unintelligible, irrational, arbitrary, unreasonable and cannot stand to the scrutiny of the mandate as provided under the Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Fourthly, both the High Courts of Telengana and Rajasthan have dealt with the cases relating to the exempted establishments and the High Courts have held in favour of those employees in the matter grant of enhanced pension. In fact, in the earlier part of the decision, the finding of the Rajasthan High Court has been extracted in extenso in regard to the exempted establishments and the finding would be a fitting answer to the objections raised on behalf of the EPFO before this Court.

23. Thus viewed, the action of the respondents in denying the benefit to the pensioners who are members of the Pension Scheme, is held to be unjustified. While reiterating the order passed by this Court earlier, the petitioners are granted liberty to submit option before the Provident Fund Commissioner under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme and the Provident Fund Commissioner shall thereafter obtain the amount from the respective PF Trust as per the said ratio of 8.55% and thereafter release all consequential benefits accordingly in terms of and as directed by the Apex Court hereinabove.

24. All the petitioners would have to submit an application for seeking of an option for receiving pension on the full salary and only after their depositing the PF amount which they have received from their concerned trust to the extent of 8.33% and the benefit of this judgment would be subject to their depositing the amount already received by them from PF Account of the PF Trust. Upon their depositing the said amount of

8.33% as calculated by the PF Trust, the PF Trust shall accordingly transfer the same to the EPFO Pension Fund and the pension shall accordingly be calculated and released. The exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondents within a period of four months."

In fact, the Telengana High Court has also dealt with the establishments which were exempted under the Act and the learned Judge of the Telengana High Court has clearly held in paragraph 12 as under:

"12. On plain reading of relevant paragraphs of the EPF Scheme 1952 and Pension Scheme 1995, I am of the considered opinion that no distinction can be drawn between exempted category employer and non exempted category employer for application of Pension Scheme 1995. Admittedly no exemption is granted to RTC from the 1995 pension scheme and its employees are enrolled and contributions are made under 1995 scheme. Further, it is categorical assertion of the respondent RTC that the entire information including higher contributions made based on the actual salary drawn by the petitioners was already furnished to the EPFO. It is not disputed that 8.33% of actual salary was being credited to EPFO all along. As noted above, it was not objected by EPFO. Thus, it is not open to EPFO to raise plea of non compliance of paragraph 26.6 at this distance of time and to deprive higher monthly pension drawable by the petitioners."

From the above, it is very clear that the objections regarding exempted establishments was repeatedly discountenanced by the High Courts and therefore, it is too late in the day for the EPFO to sustain its objections before this Court. Fifthly, the orders passed by the Kerala High Court inter alia covered the establishments including the establishments exempted by the Act. This fact has not been disputed by the EPFO in the counter affidavit. Only statement in the coutner affidavit in regard to the same is that the EPFO has implemented in respect of the exempted establishments because of the Courts' order and in the teeth of such factual position, this Court is unable to appreciate the kind of vehemence displayed by the EPFO in objecting to the grant of the relief to the employees of the exempted establishments. So much hue and cry was raised on behalf of the EPFO as if the issue considering the grant of

benefit to the employees of the exempted establishments is to be examined by this Court as the issue was not the subject matter of the litigation before any other Court. But this Court finds such submission made on behalf of the EPFO is too hallow and unacceptable since already Telangana and Rajasthan High Courts have allowed the Writ Petitions in respect of the exempted establishments and even Kerala High Court has granted the relief to some of the exempted establishyments and the judgment of the Kerala High Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Sixthly, so much so is said about the financial implication and about the unjust enrichment of the employees who were already retired and gone. The learned counsels for the EPFO would also rely on several provisions of the Pension Scheme where, it is stressed that once the employee retired, he ceased to be the member of the Pension shcme and therefore, exercising his option does not arise. This Court is unable to appreciate such submissions made on behalf of the EPFO since the right of these employees to get enhanced pension has crystallized after the orders passed by the various High Courts as aforementioned and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'R.C.Gupta case.

Once the right to get enhanced pension has taken a concrete shape in support their claim, the employees cannot be denied their claim only on the basis of the so-called financial implications. The expression 'so-called' has been used consciously by this Court since on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the EPFO, no financial statement has been filed in clear terms as to what is going to be the inflow and outflow in case the present employees are given enhanced pension. No materials have been placed before this Court on behalf of the EPFO in support of their vehement objection in regard to depletion of the pension corpus and erosion of the fund. In fact, from their own statement in the counter affidavit, it appears that the period of deficit pension fund was over and the in the latest period, the fund has surplus amount.

Though it is attributed to the admission of several lakh new members into the fund, nevertheless, the fund as such cannot be said to suffer depletion merely because small per centage of employees from the exempted establishments is paid enhanced pension for unpredictable life time. In fact, this Court is also of the view that the issue of grant of enhanced pension to the employees of the exempted establishments is also no more res integra in view of the various decisions of the High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

pensioners and any attempt by the EPFO to differentiate such homogenous group would only amount to unintelligible and unjust classification which cannot be countenanced in law or on facts. Lastly, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsels for the writ petitioners that the Circular dated 31.5.2017 which is impugned in many of the Writ Petitions, appears to have been issued in haste without proper consultation with the Government of India. Ostensibly it was issued to ward off the claims of the employees from the exempted establishments. This Court is therefore of the view that the impugned Circular was a product of non-application of mind and hence, it has to go lock, stock and barrel.

46. In view of the above conclusion, this Court has to ultimately resolve as to what kind of the relief to be granted to all the writ petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in fact, in the final paragraph of the judgment has held that the employees may be directed to return their PF amount received by them before granting the benefit under the Proviso to Clause 11

(3) of the Pension Scheme. In case of the employees from the unexempted establishments, it is only a matter of book adjustment as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'R.C.Gupta case'. Even in cases where the employees have retired and received the PF contribution, the employees can be directed to return appropriate amoiunt. As regards the employees of the exempted establishements are concerned, the same yardstick may be adopted. After all the effect of return of contribution today is one and the same for both set of employees from unexempted as well as exempted establishments.

47. Pension is neither a charity nor a largesse to be claimed as a matter of concession. It is a right which is accrued to all the employees of pensionable service, as they toiled to the grind of employment for number of years of service. The minimum expectation of such employees in the evening of their life is to be compensated modestly. As one French Philospher, Albert Camus in 20th Century, said, "It is a kind of spritual snobbery that makes people thnik they can be happy without money". The profound statement of the Philospher is more true and apt today as the world around us is rotating on a materialistic axis and every humble citizen becomes vulnerable and exposed to harsh realities of life. Life always revolves around hope and for pensioners adequate pension is the only hope left in their remaining part of life. Without that hope, final phase of existence become too mundane and impoverished. Therefore, the right to receive adequate pension is implicit within the framework of the Constitution, particularly in terms

of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

48. In the above mentioned circumstances, this Court consider the following directions as expedient to resolve the issues as projected in the Writ Petitions.

i) Both the employees of the exempted and unexempted establishments are entitled to the benefit of enhanced pension on the basis of their contribution with reference to actual salary received by them to their Provident Fund accounts;

ii)The cut off date as prescribed i.e. 01.12.2004 is invalid in law and therefore, the same is held to be illegal and invalid;

iii)The employees, namely, the writ petitioners shall be permitted to exercise their option in terms of Proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme and while permitting so, the EPFO is at liberty to seek return of the higher Provident Fund contribution received by the respective employees with simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of receipt of Provident Fund amount and till the date of payment;

iv)The amounts to be refunded by the employees concerned shall be verified by the EPFO in consultation with the respective establishments in which the employees were employed;

v) On refund of the verified amount with interest, the EPFO shall calculate and grant enhanced pension on the basis of actual salaries received by the employees with arrears of pension from the date of their retirement and continue to pay their monthly enhanced pension through out their life time;

vi)In case where the refund of the amount by any employee with interest is higher than the enhanced pension with arrears payable to him, the refund shall be insisted upon and in case where the refund, after calculation, is lower than the arrears of pension payable to the employee, the same shall be adjusted while disbursing

the arrears to the employees concerned;

vii) The respective Managements of the exempted establishments which maintained the Private Trust are directed to cooperate with the EPFO and render all assistance in quantifying the amount to be refunded by the respective employees with interest at 6% p.a.on such refund;

viii) The entire exercise shall be initiated and completed by the individual Managements and the EPFO within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

49.In the result, all the Writ Petitions are allowed on the above terms. The orders of rejection which are impugned in the respective Writ Petitions, are hereby quasahed and as regards the Writ Petitions pertaining to the grant of Writ of Mandamus to the authorities for grant of enhanced pension are concerned, the same are allowed as indicated above. No costs. Consequently, all connected WMPs are closed.

s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar Suk To 1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SHRIRAM SHASKTHI BHAVAN RAFIMARG NEW DELHI 110 001 2 THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER I PENSION BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 14 BHIKANJI CAMA PALACE NEW DELHI 110 066

3 THE ADDL. CENTRAL PF COMMISSIONER HQ (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 14 BHIKANJI CAMA PALACE NEW DELHI 110 066 4 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION EMPLOYEE PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (EPFO) NO. 37 ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD AZAD NAGAR CH 5 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (EPFO) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE R 40 A TNHB OFFICE COMPLEX MUGAPPAIR ROAD MUGAPPAIR (EAST) CHENNAI 37 6 THE CHAIRMAN & MD OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORP LTD (ONGC) PANDIT DEENDAYAL UPADHYAYA URJA BHAVA NELSON MANDELA MARG VASANT KUNJ 110 070 7 THE CHAIRMAN ONGC LTD EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND TRUST SHED NO. 21 TEL BHAWAN ONGC DEHRADUM 248 003 8 THE REGIONAL PF COMMISSIONER-I (PENSION) O/O.THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO) BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN NGO 'B' COLONY, TIRUNELVELI 627 007 TAMILNADU THE SECRETARY M/S. SOUTHERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED SPIC 88 MOUNTROAD GUINDY CHENNAI 600 032.

10 CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PF ORGANISATION MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT GOVT. OF INDIA BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI 110 066.

11 ADDL. CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION 37 ROYAPETTAH HIGH ROAD CHENNAI 14

12 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. 12 THAMBUSAMY ROAD KILPAUK CHENNAI 10 13 THE MANAGING TRUSTEE TNCSC EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND TRUST TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLIES CORP. 12 THAMBUSAMY ROAD KILPAUK CHENNAI 10 14 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMR.I (PENSION) EPF ORGANISATION BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI - 110 066 15 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION PB NO.3875 DR.BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE 641 018 16 SITRA CONTRIBUTORY PROVIDENT FUND (TN/8012) 13/37 AVINASHI ROAD TNHB COLONY CIVIL AERODROME POST NEHRU NAGAR WEST COIMBATORE TAMIL NADU 641 014 17 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER I EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION POST BOX NO. 588 SHREE COMPLEX D BLOCK 18 MADURAI ROAD THIRUCHIRAPALLI - 620008 18 THE CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU NEWSPRINT AND PAPERS LIMITED 67 MOUNT ROAD GUINDY CHENNAI - 32 19 THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR) TAMIL NADU NEWS PRINT AND PAPERS LTD.

KAGITHAPURAM - 639136 KARUR DIST.

20 THE SECRETARY TNPL PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP. BY ITS SECRETARY KAGITHAPURAM - 639136 KARUR DIST.

21 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIION O/O. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIION(EPFO) NO.3, RAJAJI SALAI TAMBARAM, CHENNAI 45, TAMILNADU.

22 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER I EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION POST BOX NO.588 SHREE COMPLEX D BLOCK 18 MADURAI ROAD THIRUCHIRAPALLI 620008 23 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMR.-I EMPLOYMENT PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION REGIONAL OFFICE AMBATTUR R40 1A TNHB OFFICE COMPLEX MOGAPPAIR RD MOGAPPAIR EAST CHENNAI-37 24 TAMIL NADU SIDCO PROVIDENT FUND TRUST THIRU.VI.KA.INDUSTRIAL ESTATE GUINDY CHENNAI-600 032.

TAMILNADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN THIRU.VI.KA.INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI 32. 26.EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIION MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVA 14, BHIKAIJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI.

27. NTC (T&P) LTD MANAGERS SUPERVISORS & HEAD OFFICE STAFF PF (TN7510) NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 35 SOMASUNDARAM MILLS RD COIMBATORE

28. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI) REP BY CHAIRMAN & MD 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI-110 001 29.THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(SOUTH)(FCI) 3, HADDOWS ROAD, CHENNAI 6.

30. FCI PROVIDENT FUND TRUST REP BY ITS SECRETARY FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA (FCI) 16-20 BARAKHAMBA LANE NEW DELHI-110 001 31.THE CHIEF PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 14 BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE NEW DELHI - 110066 32.THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION CHENNAI.

33.THE BRANCE INCHARGE THE HANDICRAFTS AND HANDLOOMS EXPORTS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, SP-31-32, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE GUINDY CHENNAI 32.

34.THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMILNADU CEMENETS CORPORATION LTD LLA BUILDINGS, II FLOOR 735, ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 600 002.

35.THE SECRETARY TANCEM PROVIDENT FUND TRUST LLA BUILDINGS II FLOOR 735 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI - 600 002.

36.THE REGISONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PF ORGANISATION DR.BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE 641 018.

37.THE ADDITIONAL CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PF ORGANISATION DR.BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE 641 018.

38.THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (PENSION) EMPLOYEES PF ORGANISATION DR.BALASUNDARAM ROAD COIMBATORE 641 018.

39.THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER REGIONAL OFFICE EPF ORGANISATION, JAYALAKSHMI PLAZA SWONAPURI, SALEM 5 40.THE CHAIRMAN & MD BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD (BPCL) REP. CHAIRMAN & MD BHARAT BHAVAN - 1 & 2 , No. 4 & 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD MUMBAI 400 001 41.THE INDIA PROVIDENT TRUST REP BY ITS TRUSTEES(BPLC) BHARAT BHAVAN, No. 4 & 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD MUMBAI 400 001 +36 Ccs to Mr.T.R.Sundaram, Sr. 29094 to 29098, 29562 to 29573, 30011, 30012, 30016 to 30021, 30023,30024, 29092, 29093, 29097, 30013, 30022, 30025, 30026, 30577, 30578 & 30580. +1 CC to Mrs.Revathy,Advocate sr 29076.

+4 Ccs to Mr.M.Purushothaman, Advocate sr 29982, 29981. +4 Ccs to Mr.R.Veludas, Advocate sr 29911, 29913, 29912, 29914. +3 CCS to Mr.Shivakumar & Suresh, Advocate sr 28885, 28888, 28886 +2 CC to Mr.S.Namasivayam, Advocate sr 29246, 30148. +4 Ccs to Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan,Advocate sr 29606, 29607, 29605, 29604.

+14 Ccs to Mrs.Vedavallikumar, Advocate sr 29256, 29251, 29253, 29257, 29258.

+3 Ccs to Mr.P.Ayyasamy, Advocate sr 28853, 28854, 28855. +2 Ccs to Mr.Balan Haridas, Advocate sr 29088, 29090. +2 CCS to Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, Advocate sr 29048, 29049. +1 CC to Mr.A.Nagarathinam, Advocate sr 30330. +1 CC to Mr.B.Ramamoorthy, advocate sr 29106. +1 CC to Mr.J.Madana Gopal Rao, Advocate sr 28942. +1 CC to Mr.G.Baskaran, Advocate sr 28804.

+1 CC to Mr.S.Vijayakumar, Advocate sr 29012. +1 CC to Mr.N.Ramesh, Advocate sr 29616.

+1 CC to Mr.T.S.Gopalan & Co sr 28920.

+1 CC to Mr.K.M.Vijayan Associates , Advocate sr 28988. +1 CC to Mr.K.Govindarajan, Advocate sr 28893. +3 CCS to Mr.K.Elango, Advocate sr 28874.

+1 CC to Mrs.S.Meenakumari, Advocate sr 28981. +1 CC to Mr.R.Thirunavukkarasu, Advocate sr 28948. +1 CC to Mr.K.S.Jayachandran, Advocate sr 28784. +1 CC to Mr.B.K.Ginish Neelakandan, Advocate sr 29442

+1 CC to Mr.K.Ramamoorthy, Advocate sr 30166. +1 CC to M/s. Sarvabhuman Associates sr 30190 +1 CC to Mr.K.Ramu, Advocate sr 30105.

+2 CCS to Mr.J.Sathya Narayana Prasad, Advocate sr 29074 +1 CC to Mr.G.Sankaran, Advocate sr 29543.

+1 CC to Mr.C.V.Ramachandramurthy, Advocate sr 30006. +1 CC to Mr.B.Ramarathnam, Advocate sr 29003. +1 CC to Mr.K.Thirukumaran, Advocate s 30598. +1 CC to Mr.M.R.Raghavan, Advocate sr 29014.

+1 CC to Mr.K.Elango, Advocate sr 30152(25/07/2019) +4 Ccs to Ms.VJ.Latha, Advocate sr 29675(26/07/2019) +12 Ccs to Vedavallikumar, advocate sr 29252, 29254, 29255 (06/08/2019) +1 CC to Mrs.Revathy,Advocate sr 29075(16/10/2019) WP.Nos.14368 of 2018, etc., etc., PVS, VGII, CA(CO) SP(18/06/2019)