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

  • Income Tax

Non-deduction of TDS does not make transaction as unexplained in the hands of deductee – ITAT

Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…

6 hours ago
  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

8 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

4 days ago