EPFO

Change of date of birth of Employees Pension Fund member to be approved by Officer lncharge of the concerned office

Change of date of birth of Employees Pension Fund member to be approved by Officer lncharge of the concerned office. Clarification by EPFO

EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066.

No.Pension-ll/instructions/Guidelines/2016-17/33314                                                                 Dated: 10 MAR 2017

To
All ACCs (Zonal Office)
All Regional P.F. Commissioner (In-Charge of Regions)
All Officers – In – Charge of SROs

Sub : Change of date of birth of Employees Pension Fund member – reg.

Ref : 1. This office letter no. Pension-l/lnstructions/Guidelines/2016/ 11900 dated 07.10.2016.
         2. This office letter no. Pension/3/8/0R/1/2005/69869 dated 12.12.2016.

Sir,

vide Head Office letter no. Pension-l/lnstructions/Guidelines/2016/ 11900 dated 07.10.2016 it was directed that the request for change in date of birth must have approval of RPFC in charge of the Region.

However, it has been reported that there is considerable delay in considering the request for change in date of birth of members under the E PS, 95 on account of transfer of file from SRO to RO.

This leads to discontentment among members and also generates large number of grievances. Further, after restructuring 100 offices are headed by RPFC-I level officers and only 35 offices are headed by RPFC-II.

The matter has been examined and in order to obviate t he difficulties faced by the field offices it has been decided to partially modify the existing instructions issued vide aforesaid letter 07.10.2016 as under :

” The request for change in date of birth must have approval of the Officer lncharge of the concerned office.”

These instruction will be applicable to all the requests for change in date of birth with immediate effect. However, the request for change in date of birth received earlier and referred to RPFC-I of the Region should be decided by RPFC-I of the Region and not returned back to SROs undecided, to avoid further delay in such cases.

(This issues with the approval of CPFC.)

Yours faithfully

(MUKESH KUMAR)
Regional P.F. Commissioner -I (Pension)

Share

Recent Posts

  • Excise/Custom

Mushroom growing apparatus cannot be classified as ‘agricultural machinery’

Mushroom growing apparatus cannot be classified as ‘agricultural machinery’ under Customs Tariff Heading 8436. In a recent judgment, Hon'ble Supreme…

10 hours ago
  • negotiable instrument act

Statutory presumption attached to issuance of a cheque to be accorded due weight – SC

Statutory presumption attached to issuance of a cheque, being one made in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability,…

15 hours ago
  • tender

Highest bid can’t be discarded on mere expectation of even more higher bid

Merely because the authority conducting auction expects higher bid than the highest bidder is no reason to discard the highest…

16 hours ago
  • Companies Act

Limitation Act 1963 not apply to quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals unless empowered

Provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 not apply to quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, unless they are specifically empowered in that…

17 hours ago
  • RBI

RBI notifies the Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantees) Regulations, 2026

RBI notifies the Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantees) Regulations, 2026 RBI has notified the Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantees) Regulations, 2026. The…

18 hours ago
  • RBI

RBI specifies ‘Related Party’ with respect to banks

RBI specifies ‘Related Party’ with respect to bank RBI has issued RBI Credit Risk Management Directions, 2025 defining ‘Related Party’…

5 days ago