CWP/27871/2026 of TRIPTA DEVI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS on 10 September 2026

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the order dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure P-7), passed qua the petitioner, whereby the joint option submitted by the petitioner for grant of higher pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 has been rejected. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to re-issue fresh and valid demand notice to the petitioner in accordance with law, grant her a reasonable opportunity to deposit the requisite differential amount along with applicable interest and thereafter, extend the benefit of higher pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 by issuing fresh and revised Pension Payment Orders in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments passed by this Court in CWP-29633-2025 titled as ‘Hazara Masih Vs. The Employees Provident Fund Organization and others’ decided on 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-9); CWP-1696-2026 titled as ‘Hari Om and others Vs. Union of India and others’ decided on 23.01.2026 (Annexure P-10); CWP-7181-2026 titled as ‘Lakhwinder Masih and others Vs. The Employees Provident Fund Organization and others’ and other VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.09.10 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-27871-2026

connected cases decided on 21.04.2026 and CWP-16475-2026 titled as ‘Harmeet Kaur Vs. Union of India and others’ decided on 25.05.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of her grievances, the petitioner has also submitted representation dated 09.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) to the respondents which is still pending consideration. He further submits that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied, if appropriate directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the said representation, by passing a speaking order, in a time bound manner.

3. Notice of motion restricted to respondents No.2 to 4 only at this stage.

4. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate has put in appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4. He has no objection to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

6. Without going into the merits of the case at this stage, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents No.3 & 4 to consider and decide representation dated 09.01.2026 (Annexure P-6) submitted by the petitioner expeditiously, by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further, the decision taken thereon shall be conveyed to the petitioner.

(NAMIT KUMAR) 10.09.2026

JUDGE kothiyal Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No VINOD KOTHIYAL 2026.09.10 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document