@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
K. Chandru, J.@mdashHeard both sides.
2. The petitioners have come forward with the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the third respondent i.e., the Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner, Madurai to grant the pensionary benefits to which they are entitled to under the Employees'' pension Scheme, 1995 without
any reduction in the pensionary benefits, quoting the clarification letter dated 10.05.1999 issued by the first respondent.
3. According to the petitioners, the said clarification letter came to be set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 5485 of 2005, vide judgment dated
08.02.2008.
4. Notice was ordered in this Writ Petition on 31.03.2009. During the pendency of the Writ petition, the first petitioner died and, hence, M.P.
(MD) No. 1 of 2010 was filed to substitute the Legal Representatives of the deceased first petitioner and the same is ordered.
5. In the clarification letter, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India interpreted para-41 of the Employees'' Pension Scheme and two different
pensions were ordered depending upon the total service. This Court, by judgment dated 08.02.2008, set aside the clarification and held that the
employees are entitled to get pension as per the provisions of the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995 and the clarification was incorrect.
Thereafter, the petitioners made claim for getting higher amount and when the same was not considered, they filed the present Writ Petition.
6. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the respondents have preferred a Writ Appeal in W.A.(MD) No. 311 of 2009. It is also
stated that a similar judgment was rendered by the Karnata High Court and the Department has preferred a SLP before the Supreme Court in
S.L.P.(Civil) No. 2077/2005 and the Supreme Court was seized of the matter.
7. The Karnataka High Court, vide its judgment in K. Chennakesavalu Vs. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Others, , had held
that the clarification issued by the Central Government cannot run against the statutory scheme framed under the Employees'' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act. He also submitted that subsequent to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, even while, the matter was
pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P., the Central Government has issued a statutory notification u/s 6-A read with Section 7(1) of the
Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, dated 15.06.2007, vide G.S.R.431(E), amending the Employees'' Pension
Scheme, known as ""the Employees'' Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2007"" and it has been notified with retrospective effect from 1995.
8. In the light of the subsequent statutory notification, the claim of the petitioners, based upon the earlier order of this Court, does not survive and
the scheme is also not under challenge.
9. In the light of the subsequent development, the case pleaded by the petitioners cannot be countenanced by this Court and hence, the Writ
Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition in M.P.(MD) No. 2 of 2009 is closed. No costs.
