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)
Whether an assessee developing an infrastructure facility of Government is a contractor and ineligible for claim of deduction under Section…
Jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax to condone delay in filing Form No. 10A for Registration u/s…
AO was not justified in making addition by adopting method of extrapolation without bringing any material evidence in support -…
Court can not sit over comparative financial attractiveness of rival offers or to substitute its own view for the decision…
When quantum appeal stands restored to the AO, penalty can not be levied u/s 221(1) of the Income Tax Act…
Even if, the assessee is engaged in the bogus purchases, the entire purchases cannot be disallowed - ITAT In a…