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

No addition when cash deposited in bank was available as cash in hand in the books

No addition when cash deposited in bank was out of cash in hand available with the assessee and AO could…

6 hours ago
  • arbitration

Use of word “can” in arbitration clause not a binding arbitration agreement –SC

Use of word “can” in arbitration clause cannot be said to be a binding arbitration agreement –Supreme Court In a…

7 hours ago
  • divorce

Loan repayments for assets acquisition not deductible for determining maintenance to wife

Repayments of loans taken for asset generation can’t be deducted  to arrive at earning capacity for determining maintenance to wife…

1 day ago
  • arbitration

Supreme Court explains distinction between seat and venue of arbitration

Seat of arbitration is governed by the agreement of the parties and not by the place of hearing or the…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Order u/s 263 enhancing disallowance quashed as CIT (A) has power of enhancements – ITAT

ITAT quashed order u/s 263 enhancing disallowance observing in appellate proceedings, CIT(A) has power of enhancements of income assessed, if…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Penalty section cannot be subject matter of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263

Section under which penalty should be initiated cannot be subject matter of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of Income Tax…

3 days ago