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)
Notice issued u/s 143(2) prior to filing of return of income by the assessee was invalid. Before filing ITR provisions…
Order u/s 148A(d) passed against non-existent entity is bad in eyes of law. Mere activation of PAN not give right…
Tax authorities not bound with provisions of section 44AE of the Act once assessee waived the option available In a…
Whether seized document is incriminating or not is definitely a findings of fact – High Court In a recent judgment,…
Interest earned on borrowed funds/ unutilized capital subsidy are capital receipts In a recent judgment, Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has…
There is no statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act - High Court stayed demand …