Trust Rules vs Statutory Pension Rights: Calcutta High Court’s Extension of Higher Pension to Employees of Exempted Establishments

1. Introduction

This commentary examines the judgment dated 14 November 2025 of the Calcutta High Court (Appellate Side, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction) delivered by Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) in a batch of writ petitions, including Subhas Chandra Mallik & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (WPA 15534 of 2025) and connected matters such as:

• Anuradha Roy & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (WPA 15459 of 2025)
• Anil Kumar Rai & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (WPA 10854 of 2025)
• Ramesh Kumar Mundhra v. Union of India & Ors. (WPA 21136 of 2025)
• and several other petitions arising from different establishments and trusts.

All petitions were heard and decided together because they raised a common legal issue: whether the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) could deny the benefit of higher pension on higher wages under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (EPS 1995) to employees of exempted establishments by relying on internal Provident Fund (PF) trust rules that restricted contributions to the statutory wage ceiling, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in EPFO & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors., (2023) 12 SCC 701.

The Court’s answer is emphatic: no. Internal PF trust rules of exempted establishments cannot be used by EPFO to defeat statutory pension rights or to dilute the Supreme Court’s pronouncements. The judgment:

• quashes EPFO’s Headquarters circular dated 18 January 2025 insofar as it makes trust rules decisive for higher pension eligibility and disqualifies post-04.11.2022 amendments to trust rules; and
• sets aside multiple rejection orders passed by various Regional Offices of EPFO denying higher pension.

In doing so, the Court clarifies the legal position of employees of exempted establishments and reasserts the primacy of the EPF Act, the EPF/EPS schemes, and binding Supreme Court authority over administrative circulars and trust documents.

2. Factual Background

2.1. Parties and Consolidated Petitions

The petitioners are retired employees from a spectrum of establishments, including:

• Various units of Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) – a Maharatna PSU – such as:
  • Central Marketing Organisation (CMO)
  • IISCO Steel Plant, Burnpur
  • Durgapur Steel Plant
  • Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur
• IRCON International Limited
• Hindustan Cables Limited (a closed PSU)
• Contai Co-operative Bank Ltd. (an urban co-operative bank)
• Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)
• Other similar organisations with their own PF trusts.

Common to all:

• Their employers are exempted establishments under Section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act), operating their own PF trusts.
• None of the establishments had any exemption from EPS 1995; pension matters are directly with EPFO.
• The petitioners were all in service on 01.09.2014, the crucial cut-off date under the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunil Kumar B.
• They had exercised joint options (employer + employee) online for higher pension on actual wages pursuant to R.C. Gupta and Sunil Kumar B.

2.2. Exempted Establishments and Trust Rules

Under Section 17 of the EPF Act, certain establishments can be exempted from the statutory EPF Scheme, 1952 if they maintain their own PF trusts offering benefits not less favourable than the statutory scheme. For such exempted establishments:

• The PF (Provident Fund) is managed by the employer’s trust, under “Trust Rules”.
• The EPS 1995 is not exempted (unless there is a specific exemption under para 39 of EPS; here there was none). Pension contributions go to EPFO.

In virtually all the establishments involved, the PF trust rules:

• adopted the EPFO’s “Model Trust Rules”; and
• contained a clause similar to Rule 11(b) limiting employer’s contribution to EPS to the prevailing wage ceiling (first Rs. 6,500, later Rs. 15,000), e.g.:
  “Provided that where the pay of the member exceeds Rs. 15,000/- per month the contribution payable by the employer be limited to the amount on his pay of Rs. 15,000/- only.”

At the same time, the same trust rules typically contained an overriding clause (e.g. Rule 31A or Rule 84(iv)):

Thus, by design, the trust rules themselves subjected their provisions to the EPF Act and EPF Scheme wherever the statutory scheme was more beneficial.

2.3. Supreme Court Backdrop and EPFO Circulars

The litigation arises in the backdrop of two landmark Supreme Court judgments:

1. R.C. Gupta v. RPFC, (2018) 14 SCC 809
2. EPFO & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors., (2023) 12 SCC 701 (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1521)

These judgments:

• clarified that employees (and employers) who had contributed on higher wages could opt for higher pension, notwithstanding procedural/cut-off date issues; and
• extended a further window to exercise joint option for members in service on 01.09.2014.

EPFO issued several circulars to implement the Supreme Court decision, notably:

• Circulars dated 29.12.2022, 05.01.2023, 25.01.2023 – opening portals, setting timelines, and modalities of joint options and differential contributions.
• Clarification dated 18.01.2025 (File No. Pension/VI/PoHW/2024‑25/e-file‑951977) focusing on “Pension on Higher Wages (PoHW)” cases of exempted establishments, which became central to this case.

The 18.01.2025 clarification stated, inter alia, that:

Relying heavily on this clarification, EPFO regional offices began rejecting joint options from retired employees of exempted establishments.

2.4. EPFO’s Rejection Orders

Across the petitions, EPFO issued rejection orders that share common features:

• They quote the specific clause (like Rule 11(b)) in the PF trust rules restricting pension contributions to the statutory ceiling.
• They state that since the trust rules never incorporated the proviso to para 11(3) of EPS 1995 (allowing contributions on higher wages), employees are ineligible for higher pension.
• They rely on the 18.01.2025 Headquarters clarification to hold that:
  • trust rules are decisive for determining eligibility; and
  • any amendment to trust rules post 04.11.2022 (the date of Sunil Kumar B.) cannot be considered.
• In many cases, EPFO:
  • had already issued demand notices for differential pension contributions;
  • received full payment from retirees with interest; and
  • in some instances, had even started paying higher pension and arrears—before later cancelling those benefits and treating demand notices as “void ab initio”.
• EPFO claimed to have “heard” the employers (establishments), but no hearing was given to the affected employees.

This led to the present writ petitions alleging, among other things, violation of statutory rights, breach of Supreme Court mandates, and denial of natural justice.

3. Issues Before the Court

The Court had to determine, broadly:

1. Whether EPFO can deny higher pension on higher wages to employees of exempted establishments by relying on PF trust rules that restrict contributions to the statutory wage ceiling, despite:
   • the statutory framework of EPS 1995; and
   • the Supreme Court’s decisions in R.C. Gupta and Sunil Kumar B..
2. Whether EPFO’s Headquarters clarification dated 18.01.2025 – making trust rules determinative of eligibility and rejecting post‑04.11.2022 trust rule amendments – is legally valid or ultra vires.
3. Whether the overriding clauses (e.g. Rule 31A/Rule 84(iv)) in PF trust rules, which give primacy to the EPF Act and schemes where more beneficial, were wrongly ignored or misapplied by EPFO.
4. Whether EPFO’s reliance on Rule 31A(3) (power of RPFC to decide which rule is more beneficial) to reject higher pension claims was lawful, especially when employees were not afforded a hearing.
5. What relief should be granted to employees who:
   • were in service on 01.09.2014,
   • had exercised joint options within time, and
   • had already remitted (or were ready to remit) differential contributions with interest.

4. Summary of the Judgment

The Court allowed all the writ petitions and granted sweeping relief. In essence, it held:

• Employees of exempted establishments are entitled to higher pension on higher wages under EPS 1995 on the same terms as employees of unexempted establishments, if they fulfil the conditions in Sunil Kumar B., including being in service as on 01.09.2014 and having exercised valid joint options.
• PF trust rules cannot be used by EPFO to deny higher pension, particularly where trust rules themselves contain overriding clauses giving precedence to the EPF Act and schemes when more beneficial.
• EPFO’s HQ clarification dated 18 January 2025 and the regional rejection orders (including the key order dated 05.02.2025 and analogous orders in other WPs) are contrary to law, contrary to the Supreme Court’s mandate, arbitrary and violative of natural justice.
• EPFO’s interpretation of its power under Rule 31A(3) as allowing “subjective consideration” to disregard more beneficial statutory provisions is legally unsustainable and beyond jurisdiction.
• The EPFO circular of 18.01.2025 and the rejection orders are quashed and set aside.
• Any joint option application filed on or before 31.01.2025 (or within any further extension granted by the Supreme Court, e.g. in the “BHEL–MCL” order) must be accepted by EPFO.
• On remittance of the differential contribution with applicable interest, EPFO must disburse higher pension from the succeeding month of such remittance.
• No order as to costs; interim orders, if any, were vacated.

5. Precedents and Authorities Considered

5.1. R.C. Gupta & Ors. v. RPFC & Ors., (2018) 14 SCC 809

This decision is foundational for the doctrine of higher pension on higher wages. Key points as relied upon by the Calcutta High Court:

• Dual options: The Supreme Court distinguished between:
  • option under para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme (contribution to PF on actual wages beyond ceiling); and
  • option under para 11(3) of EPS 1995 (contribution to pension fund on higher wages).
• Exercise of option under para 26(6) does not estop the employee from later exercising the para 11(3) option:
  “We do not see how the exercise of the option under paragraph 26 of the Provident Fund Scheme can be construed to stop the employees from exercising a similar option under para 11(3)... Exercise of option under para 26(6) is a necessary precursor to the exercise of option under Clause 11(3)... would not foreclose the exercise of a further option under Clause 11(3)...”
• Deemed exercise of option: Where contributions on actual salary were in fact being made and accepted, even without formal documentation, such conduct could be treated as a deemed exercise of option.

The Calcutta High Court relies on this reasoning to reject EPFO’s estoppel argument and to hold that employees who contributed on higher wages (even via their PF trusts) can legitimately shift to higher pension under EPS by transferring differential amounts.

5.2. EPFO & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors., (2023) 12 SCC 701

This is the main Supreme Court authority applied. The Calcutta High Court particularly emphasises:

• Homogeneity of employees of exempted and unexempted establishments:
  “…in quashing the Circular dated 31‑5‑2017, the Delhi High Court has held that the employees of unexempted establishments and exempted establishments form a homogeneous group… Section 6‑A… envisages coverage of employees of exempted establishments under Section 17(6)…”
  and
  “The employees of exempted establishments are integrated into the Pension Scheme and we are of the opinion that the employees of an exempted establishment should not be deprived of the benefit of getting option to remain in the Pension Scheme while drawing salary beyond the ceiling limit, in situations where similarly situated employees of unexempted establishments can exercise such option… Otherwise it would lead to artificial classification…”
• Direction on transfer of funds from PF Trusts (para 45):
  “…in order to be entitled to the benefits of the pension fund, the employer and the employees, simultaneously with exercising option… shall also have to give an undertaking of transferring the employers’ contribution at the stipulated rate maintained by the trusts… Such transfer shall take place, immediately after exercise of such option…”
• Para 44(iii) and (iv):
  • those who had already exercised the second option under the (old) proviso to para 11(3) and were in service as on 01.09.2014 would be governed by amended para 11(4);
  • under Article 142, a one‑time further opportunity was given to other eligible members in service as on 01.09.2014 to exercise joint options.

The High Court treats this as conclusive on two points:

1. Employees of exempted establishments stand on the same footing as those of unexempted establishments regarding higher pension eligibility.
2. EPFO’s job is to facilitate the transfer of contributions from PF trusts and to grant higher pension, not to create additional disqualifications via trust rules or circulars.

5.3. Madras High Court (Madurai Bench): BHEL, NLC, Madura Coats v. Union of India & Ors. (02.09.2025)

The Court referred to the Madurai Bench judgment in W.P.(MD) Nos. 29573–29578 of 2024 and batch (BHEL, NLC, Madura Coats), where it was held that:

• remittance of lesser amount to EPS was attributable to non‑exercise of joint option, not to any bar in trust rules;
• PF trust rules framed under the EPF Scheme cannot be used to deny benefits under EPS 1995, especially since there is no exemption under para 39 of EPS.

The Calcutta High Court cites this with approval to reinforce that:

• exemption is from the EPF Scheme, not EPS; and
• conditions for exemption under one scheme cannot be “kaleidoscoped” into another to curtail statutory pension rights.

5.4. Kerala High Court: EPFO & Ors. v. A. Chandrakumaran Nair & Ors., WA 852 of 2022

EPFO relied on this pre‑Sunil Kumar B. decision, where the Kerala High Court emphasised the necessity of a joint request under para 26(6) for higher contributions to PF and found that the employees had not exercised any such option or paid higher contributions.

The Calcutta High Court distinguishes this case factually:

• In Chandrakumaran Nair, no joint options were exercised; here, all petitioners had duly filed joint options pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions.
• In the present cases, contributions on higher wages were already deposited (at least in PF trusts), and EPFO’s own portal had accepted joint options before later rejecting them.

5.5. VIJAY KUMAR v. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA (Supreme Court, 15.07.2025)

The petitioners also relied on this later Supreme Court judgment (post‑Sunil Kumar B.), where the Court reiterated that:

• Right to pension can be curtailed or denied only under authority of law;
• such authority must flow from the parent statute (EPF Act), statutory schemes (EPF/EPS), or binding judicial precedent, and not from administrative circulars or internal rules.

The Calcutta High Court invokes this to underline that EPFO’s 18.01.2025 clarification and reliance on internal trust rules cannot override statutory or constitutional guarantees.

6. Court’s Legal Reasoning

6.1. Equality of Employees of Exempted and Unexempted Establishments

The Court places heavy reliance on para 42–45 of Sunil Kumar B. to hold that:

• Employees of exempted and unexempted establishments constitute a homogeneous class under EPS 1995.
• Any interpretation of the scheme that excludes employees of exempted establishments from the right to opt for higher pension would create an artificial classification, offending Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Section 17(6) of the EPF Act and Clause 1(3) of EPS explicitly integrate employees of exempted establishments within the pension framework.

Therefore, EPFO cannot rely on trust rules to treat employees of exempted establishments less favourably than those in unexempted ones. Doing so would:

• violate statutory provisions; and
• be contrary to direct Supreme Court holdings.

6.2. Effect of PF Trust Rules and Overriding Clauses

EPFO’s core contention was that since the PF trust rules:

• limited EPS contributions to the statutory ceiling; and
• never incorporated the proviso to para 11(3) of EPS 1995 permitting higher wage contributions,

employees could not now seek higher pension. The Court rejects this on multiple grounds:

1. Nature of Exemption:
   • Exemption under Section 17(1) is from the EPF Scheme, 1952, not from EPS 1995.
   • For EPS 1995, employers—including exempted establishments—are merely conduits forwarding contributions to EPFO; they have no independent pension “scheme” to compete with EPS.
2. Overriding Clauses (Rule 31A, Rule 84(iv) etc.):
   • Trust rules explicitly state that where they are less beneficial than the EPF Act/EPF Scheme, the statutory scheme shall prevail.
   • This means that even if Rule 11(b) restricts contributions, once EPS 1995—read with Supreme Court judgments—offers a more beneficial right (higher pension on higher wages), the statutory scheme and SC decisions override the trust rules.
3. Transfer of Funds vs. Creation of Right:
   • The higher pension right flows from EPS 1995 and Supreme Court decisions, not from trust rules.
   • Trust rules are relevant only for the mechanics of transferring the required funds (and they already provide for compliance with statutory schemes where more beneficial).
   • Para 45 of Sunil Kumar B. directly contemplates such transfer from PF trusts of exempted establishments.
4. No Supreme Court requirement to amend trust rules:
   • The Court notes that nowhere in Sunil Kumar B. did the Supreme Court direct that exempted establishments must first amend their trust rules to allow higher pension.
   • EPFO’s insistence on amendments and its further stance that post‑04.11.2022 amendments will be ignored are therefore judicially unfounded.

6.3. Invalidity of EPFO’s 18.01.2025 Clarification

The Headquarters clarification dated 18.01.2025 was central to EPFO’s stance. The High Court finds that:

• It misreads and misapplies the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunil Kumar B..
• It seeks to create a new disqualification for employees of exempted establishments by making trust rules determinative of eligibility, which neither the Act nor EPS 1995 nor the Supreme Court contemplate.
• It further attempts to bar consideration of any post‑judgment amendments to trust rules that might facilitate higher pension, effectively “closing all avenues” for employees.
• Such a circular/corrigendum cannot:
  • override the EPF Act or EPS 1995;
  • neutralise a Supreme Court judgment; or
  • defeat the purpose of a beneficial welfare legislation.

The Court characterises EPFO’s conduct as:

• contrary to principles of natural justice (as employees were not heard);
• an abuse of process, designed to deny benefits that the Supreme Court had conferred; and
• “not acceptable” in light of the welfare character of the legislation.

Accordingly, the 18.01.2025 circular and the rejection orders passed pursuant to it are quashed and set aside.

6.4. Misuse of Rule 31A(3) and “Subjective Consideration”

Rule 31A(3) of many trust rules provides:

EPFO argued that this allowed the RPFC to subjectively decide whether trust rules or statutory provisions are “more beneficial”, and to reject the petitioners’ reliance on the overriding clauses.

The RPFC, in one key rejection order, stated:

The Court finds this reasoning flawed on multiple counts:

• The concept of “subjective consideration” is explained as a decision based on personal feelings or biases rather than objective legal criteria. The Court underscores that such a standard cannot govern statutory rights.
• Rule 31A(3) authorises the RPFC only to identify which provision is more beneficial, not to deny the operation of statutory provisions or Supreme Court judgments.
• The RPFC’s observation that the trust rules were never amended is irrelevant where the trust rules themselves concede that the statutory scheme prevails whenever more beneficial.
• In effect, the RPFC had travelled beyond jurisdiction by using Rule 31A(3) to:
  • override statutory rights;
  • ignore the overriding clause; and
  • rely on his own notion of “subjective consideration”.

The Court therefore sets aside this part of the reasoning as not in accordance with law.

6.5. Natural Justice and Procedural Defects

Procedurally, the Court notes:

• EPFO claims to have issued show‑cause notices and heard the employers (establishments) before rejecting joint options.
• However, no hearing was afforded to the employees whose vested or accruing rights to pension were directly affected.
• This amounts to a violation of audi alteram partem – a core principle of natural justice.
• The EPFO Circular No. 405 dated 23.04.2023 itself envisaged certain procedural safeguards for dealing with higher pension applications; these were not followed in letter or spirit.

The Court therefore treats the rejection orders as vitiated both on substantive and procedural grounds.

6.6. Application of Law to the Petitioners

On applying the above principles, the Court notes:

• All petitioners:
  • were in service on 01.09.2014;
  • were members of EPS 1995; and
  • had exercised joint options within the window set by Supreme Court and EPFO circulars.
• In many cases:
  • EPFO had scrutinised and accepted joint options; and
  • had even issued demand notices, acknowledged payments, and in some instances started paying higher pension—later abruptly reversed.
• The higher wage portion of contributions has already been lying in the PF trusts (for many years), and petitioners are ready to remit or transfer such amounts with interest to EPS 1995.

In line with R.C. Gupta and para 45 of Sunil Kumar B., the Court directs:

1. Acceptance of Joint Options:
   • Any joint option submitted on or before 31.01.2025 (or within any subsequent extension granted by the Supreme Court, e.g. “BHEL MCL”) must be treated as valid and accepted.
2. Payment of Differential Contributions:
   • Employees must remit/transfer the differential employer’s and employee’s contributions on actual wages, with applicable interest, from PF trusts to the pension fund.
3. Grant of Higher Pension:
   • Upon receipt of such amounts, EPFO shall compute and disburse higher pension on actual wages from the succeeding month of remittance.

7. Simplifying Key Legal Concepts

7.1. Exempted Establishments and PF Trusts

• An exempted establishment (Section 17 EPF Act) is one where the employer runs its own PF trust instead of depositing PF with EPFO, subject to EPFO’s approval and oversight.
• These establishments must offer PF benefits not less favourable than the statutory EPF Scheme.
• Crucially, exemption is from the EPF Scheme, not from EPS 1995, unless there is a separate and specific exemption from the pension scheme (rare and absent here).

7.2. Higher Pension on Higher Wages

• Originally, EPF/EPS contributions were subject to a wage ceiling (Rs. 5,000, later Rs. 6,500, then Rs. 15,000).
• Para 11(3) of EPS 1995 (before its 2014 amendment) allowed employers and employees to opt to contribute on actual salary exceeding the ceiling.
• “Higher pension on higher wages” means:
  • both employer and employee contribute 8.33% of actual wages (beyond the ceiling) to the pension fund; and
  • monthly pension is calculated on that higher pensionable salary, leading to significantly higher pension than on the capped wage.

7.3. Joint Option under Para 26(6) and Para 11(3)

• Para 26(6) of EPF Scheme, 1952:
  • Enables employer and employee to jointly request that contributions be calculated on pay above the wage ceiling and remitted to PF.
• Para 11(3) of EPS 1995 (pre‑2014):
  • Allowed a further, separate option to contribute to pension fund on actual wages beyond the ceiling.
  • The Supreme Court held both options are distinct; exercise of 26(6) is a “necessary precursor” but not a substitute for 11(3).
• In practice, many employers contributed on higher wages (at least to PF) without formal documentation; the Supreme Court treated such conduct as a deemed exercise or as a ground to relax cut‑off dates.

7.4. Artificial Classification and Article 14

• Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits the State from creating unreasonable or “artificial” classifications between similarly situated persons.
• Here, treating:
  • employees of exempted establishments differently from those in unexempted establishments; or
  • employees of different exempted establishments differently simply because their internal trust rules mention or omit a ceiling clause,
  would create sub‑classifications within the same homogeneous group of EPS members.
• Such classifications, not founded on any rational nexus with the object of the pension scheme, are constitutionally impermissible.

8. Impact and Implications

8.1. For Employees/Pensioners of Exempted Establishments

• This judgment significantly strengthens the position of employees of exempted establishments (PSUs, large corporates, co‑ops) seeking higher pension.
• For all who:
  • were in service on 01.09.2014;
  • have exercised valid joint options within time; and
  • are willing to transfer differential contributions with interest,
  EPFO is now directed to process and grant higher pension, regardless of restrictive language in trust rules.
• Employees who already paid differential amounts and were later denied benefits gain a clear right to restoration of higher pension.

8.2. For EPFO’s Administrative Practice

• EPFO cannot rely on its own circulars, including the clarification dated 18.01.2025, to:
  • override statutory schemes;
  • sidestep Supreme Court directives; or
  • use internal trust rules as a basis for exclusion.
• The judgment reaffirms judicial supremacy and the principle that beneficial welfare legislations must be interpreted and administered liberally in favour of employees.
• It may force EPFO to:
  • withdraw or revise similar clarifications across India;
  • standardise treatment of exempted and unexempted establishment employees; and
  • create robust procedures ensuring employees are heard before adverse decisions on pension entitlement.

8.3. For Employers and PF Trusts

• Employers managing PF trusts must recognise that:
  • their trust rules are subordinate to the EPF Act, EPF Scheme, and EPS 1995; and
  • overriding clauses (like Rule 31A/Rule 84) will be enforced to give employees the benefit of more favourable statutory provisions.
• Attempts to rely on ceiling‑limiting clauses to avoid higher pension liabilities may not be sustainable, especially where employees and employers had, in substance, contributed on higher wages or are willing to do so now.
• Employers may need to coordinate with EPFO to:
  • calculate differential contributions on higher wages; and
  • ensure timely transfer of amounts from PF trusts to the pension fund.

8.4. Possible Future Litigation and Open Questions

• While this judgment covers those who filed joint options by 31.01.2025 (or extended date), questions may remain for:
  • employees who missed the extended deadlines due to EPFO’s confusing or adverse circulars;
  • employees of other exempted establishments whose trust rules differ in drafting; or
  • situations where employers do not cooperate in transferring contributions.
• The interplay between this judgment and any future clarifications/circulars issued by EPFO may also generate further litigation until the Supreme Court resolves all residual ambiguities.

9. Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s decision in Subhas Chandra Mallik & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and connected cases is a significant reaffirmation of statutory pension rights and the rule of law in the field of social security. It establishes that:

• Employees of exempted establishments are entitled to higher pension on higher wages under EPS 1995 on the same footing as employees of unexempted establishments, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar B..
• PF trust rules cannot be used by EPFO to defeat these statutory rights, particularly where trust rules themselves concede the supremacy of the EPF Act and schemes.
• EPFO’s attempt, via the 18.01.2025 clarification, to condition eligibility on trust rules and to disqualify post‑judgment amendments is ultra vires, arbitrary, and contrary to binding precedent.
• Administrative authorities implementing welfare legislation must act consistently with judicial directives, constitutional guarantees, and the beneficial character of the schemes, and cannot create artificial classifications or deny hearing to affected pensioners.

In the broader legal context, this judgment deepens and operationalises the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on higher pension (from R.C. Gupta and Sunil Kumar B.) and sends a clear message: statutory and judicially recognised pension entitlements cannot be curtailed by internal rules or executive circulars. For thousands of retired employees of exempted establishments, it opens the door to long‑awaited financial security in the form of higher pension on actual wages.