EPS-95 Benefit of Supreme court order to exempted establishments. EPFO clarifies that receiving contribution on full salary in EPFO account a must
EMPLOYEES‘ PROVIDENTÂ FUND ORGANISATION
(Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India)
No: Pension-l/12/33/EPSÂ Amendment/96 Vol. II/4432
Dated: 31st May, 2017
To. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
All ACCs (Zonal Offices)
All Regional P.F. Commissioner (In-Charge of Regions),
All officers-in-charge of SROs.Â
Subject:- Allowing members of the EPS’ 95 the benefit of the actual salary in the Pension Fund exceeding wage limit of either Rs. 5000/- or Rs. 6500/- per month from the effective date respectively as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in Civil Appeal NO(S) 10013-10014 of2016 arising out of SLP No. 33032-33033 of 2015 – reg.
Sir,
Please arrange to refer this office letter No. Pension-I/12/33/EPF/Amendtments/96/Vol-l dated 23.03.2017 on the above cited subject. Many references have been received from field offices to confirm if the aforesaid circular dated 23.03.2017 is applicable to employees of EPF exempted establishments. In this context, it is informed as under:
(i) Approval to comply with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri R.C. Gupta and others is only in respect of the Provident Fund & Pension members whose accounts are maintained by EPFO and whose P.F. Contribution on higher wages has been received by EPFO.
(ii) All the appellant employees in the aforesaid case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were from unexempted establishment i.e. an establishment making P.F. contributions in the statutory Provident Fund managed by EPFO. The Employer’s contribution of 12 % under the Act in respect of the said employees was on actual salary and not on the ceiling limit of either Rs. 5,000 /- or Rs.6,500/-.
(iii) Exercise of option untler Para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, 1952 is a precursor to exercise of option under proviso to clause 11(3) of the pension scheme. The appellant employees in the aforesaid case had exercised option under para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme and contribution on full salary was received in the statutory Provident Fund.
(iv) Employees’ Pension Scheme remittances are being made by the establishments and not by the exempted Trusts. As such if establishments with exempted trusts are allowed to make balance remittances on full salary to the Employees Pension scheme afresh, the same will have to be considered for unexempted establishments also. It is not contemplated in the judgment.
(v) In the case of exempted establishment the Provident Fund and Pension Fund are managed by separate legal entities. The Provident Fund of employees of exempted establishments are managed by Exempted Trusts and Pension Fund is managed by EPFO. As such, adjustment of contribution from Provident Fund Account to Pension Account as contemplated in the judgment is not possible.
The matter was placed in the 40th PEIC meeting. As decided in the 40th meeting of the PEIC the matter will be placed before the CBT. In the interim, it is advised that no member of EPS, 95 whose contribution on full salary has not been received in the account of the EPFO at the respective periods of contribution, shall be eligible for the benefits contemplated in the judgment as per the aforesaid Hon’ ble Supreme Court order.
(This iss ue s with the a pprova l of CPFC)
Yours faithfully
(Mukesh Kurmar)
Regional PF Commissioner-I (Pension)
EPFO is not willing to honour the verdicts of courts and are simply delaying providing enhanced pension, in spite of repeated failures in their arguments to deny such benefits before different courts. When High Powered Committees to study and suggest suitable recommendations have already been done in 2010 and 2012, where was the need for appointing one more HPC on 04.01.2018, which was to have submitted it’s report within 6 months, was given another lease of 3 months but the recommendations have not yet been submitted, which shows that government is not sincere. Previous MOL&E Minister Shri Bandaru Dattareya had assured that irrespective of whether the pensioners were litigants or not, the benefit as specified by SV verdict of 04.10.2016 would be extended to all. Letter of 23.03.2017 has been issued after proper sanction by mol&e, peic and CBT in December 2016 whereas the letter of 31.05.2017 does not seem to have followed those procedures as CBT members had expressed their displeasure at they having not been taken into confidence before issue of 31.05.2017 letter, which states to have been issued with approval of CPFC. There is no clarity. Moreover, some pensioners from exempted establishments are being paid enhanced pension. How then can EPFO deny to others. These bureaucrats are working against the interests and objectives of EPS and indirectly directing the ire of EPS pensioners against the government. Government should realise this and also ensure that the disparity in payment of pension to civil servants and others are reduced. Government needs to step in and correct the situation before it results in serious repercussion for the ruling government.
KUMAR k k
The maharashtra State Elect. Dist . Company is formed on 2005 and PF contribution of their employees is depositing in Maharashtra State Elect Board Employees POrovident Trust , where as MSEB Pf Turst is meant only for MSEB employees and MSEB establishment is closed during year 2005. Hence There is relation between MSEBPf Trust and MSEDCL employees provident fund. Same transaction is still continued since last 13 years illegal. MSEDCL and MSEB PF Trust have not applied to apporpriate Govt. for this transaction. Hence MSEDCL is comming under unexempted catagory. Now I may please be permitted to pay the difference amount on actual salary , as I retired employee during 2014 March. from MSEDCL. Pl, issue me 3-A form for the same.
supreme court does not differentiate exempted and nonexemptyed pensioners
pensioners are not responsibe for the above reasons.
what is the procedure for obtaining above mentioned higher pension ?
What ever may be All are playing with Senior citizen’s lives who are leading a very miserable life due to carelessness of the Govt and officials .
As per EPS 95, there is no difference between exempted and Non- exempted establishments In the EPFO Annual Reports as per Para no.39 of EPS95 only three organizations were exempted from EPS95 scheme sofar by the Central Government remaining all are unexempted establishments. The EPFO also informed that there is no descrimination between exempted and non-exempted establishments (Trusts) to the petitioners under RTI ACT 2005.The Government is agreed/approved to allow pention to all the members of EPS95 as per supreme Court verdict . But the EPFO officials is intentionally denying to settle the pensions on maximum salary . So please settle the senior citizens issue on humanitarian ground.
THE UNNECESSARY CONTROVERSEY HAS BEEN CREATED BY EPFO ITSELF. SUPREME COURT HAS GIVEN JUDGEMENT THAT EPS CONTRIBUTION ABOVE CEILING BE REMITTED ALONG WITH CUMULATIVE INTEREST WITH THE CONSENT OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE, THEN HOW CAN EPFO MAKE A NEW DISCRIMNATORY CLASS OF EXMPTED ORGANISATIONS AND DEPRIVE SEVERAL LAKH EMPLOYEES OF ENHANCED PENSION.
It is very painful that exempted orgnisation employee are deprived benefit of higher pension. when pension is paid by EPF org. on ceiling limit. it is requested by the GOVT a chance be also given to all employee serving and retd both to exercise this option. and for future a premanent rule to be made so that employee can get higher pension. This is very sameful that employee is getting very less pension in which he.she can not maintain old age expenses.
Pl do something either by approaching court of law or Govt
The stand taken by EPFO is tenuous. The ‘exempted ‘ organisations were allowed to be exempted with due approval of EPFO / Govt. of India after due diligence. That the exempted organisations did deposit only the pension amount was surely in the mechanism of the ‘exemption ‘ rule approved by the Govt. Whatever payment of additional pension contribution on the full basic salary of an employee shall have to be made may be borne by the employee. If the Govt. is gracious enough the EPFO can be be asked to adjust the payable amount of the retired employee against receivable pension on getting the Employer ‘s dues. Option of the employee for this exercise may be collected by the Employer concerned and submitted to the EPFO. In any case there is no ground to block the interest of employees when intention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ‘s order is palpable.
PF and Pension are social security for retired employees. If they are deprived, how senior citizens can live in these sky rocketing price days and high cost of medical care who have no medical help from their employers. EPFO must implement Supreme Court orders and enhance pension at the earliest.
Dear Contestants of revised pension,
It is unfair on the part of EPFO to distinguish between exempted establishments and unexempted establishments. How does it matter when both are contributing on the actual salary ? Pension must be revised basing on the actual salary as per Supreme Court order without further delay.
Further, it is also not fair on the part of EPFO to ask retired employees to deposit lakhs of rupees being the difference. Anyhow EPFO has to pay arrears on revised pension. Let them do book adjustment.
They should not also ask the retired employees to get the details from their previous employers.
Previous employers already submitted yearly returns in addition to monthly returns.
Sir, Irrespective of political and other affliations, all powers that be should support the
Exempted category organizations emploees to get honourable amount of family pension.
Times of India 22nd Nov 2017 writes that 2 of the 12 petitioners are from exempted trusts.
In any case, EPFO cannot discriminate as per his whims. We should approach SC for speedy enforcement.
The attitude of the RPFC-I(Pension), after the Supreme Court judgment, prompts me to request the Central Govt to please make arrangements for returning into the pension fold of my original organisation,WBPDCL, so that I don’t have to wade through the rhetorical jugglery of this kind of officer at the fag end of my service career shortly going to be ended in Feb. 2018.
I did neither exercise my option in favour of Eps-95 nor did I actually have any idea of what the contents of this scheme would be like .It just so happened that one day I came to know that I was enlisted as a member of the EPS-95 . But still I felt peace in mind that afterall it was a Central Govt scheme, so we would be given fair treatment. But now after the Apex Court verdict, I am appalled that I have been got trapped
into an uncharted territory to languish for the rest of my life .The then Govt in 1995 played the most nefarious role for people like us . Hope this would find a soft corner from anybody in authority so
that we could find a way out from this trauma. M.K.Thakur, BTPS,Triveni,Hooghly,WB.
As per hn. Schedule order penson applicable according to the last pay of the retired person.if the difference amount not deducted the concerned employee required to deposit.at present epfo authority clarifying that exempted employees are not eligible.ome thinking came to mind the pf trust is a creation of employees by them or by there trade union.so far what action has been taken by epfo authority To deposit the full amount against the existing employees continuing with exempted establishment.my opiniopinion is such actin by epfo is sensation fundamental rights of a group of Sr citizen of India and wrong enterpretation of law and order of hon.supreme court of India regards
To,
The Asst PF Commissioner (Pension)
Regional Office, Kalaburagi Karnataka
Sir,
As per Supreme Court order, Letter No.-1/12/33/EPF/Amendment/96/Vol I/ Circular for all members EPF-95, I have applied for increase of my pension salary on dated 11/09/2017 at EPFO Regional office Kalaburagi. Presently I am getting pension of Rs 2633/-month.
Being a member of the EPS-95 scheme, kindly let me know the revised increase pension amount will be in effect.
With Kind regards,
Balakrishna Khapate
To
All Regional Commissioners,
EPFO.
Dear Sirs,
Being a member of the EPS-95 scheme, I am shocked to read the logic of one Regional P F Commissioner that it is impossible to secure the higher contributions from exempted trusts. Sir, it is the EPFO which has granted the exempted status to private trusts.So you could have easily asked for the higher contributions to be deposited with your
Kitty. So it is your fault that you failed to foresee this kind of a situation would arise. The kind of situation as is the case after the Supreme Court’s verdict for higher amount of pension on actual salary exceeding the ceiling. I cannot recall any caution you have ever sounded to the members of private trusts. Now what is the use of seeking clarifications raising meritless points?
Moreover,there is the humanitarian and social security point of view. So please consider the Apex Court decision for an opportunity to pull out a large of your country men from the jaws of utter gloom.
Yours solemnly,
M K Thakur.
Further I feel that EPFO being government organisation shall always oppose the benefit extended to other set of pensioners..Unless we go to court we may not get justice.Approching EPFO is just wasting our time when we have very short span of life left with us.
. I fail to understand why the pensioners of exempted organisations are being deprived of the benefits as the pensioner has not chosen the body to maintain the fund. At present the EPS95 pensioners of exempted organisation are getting to the tune of 1000/ to 2500/ which are forcing them to lead a shameful life.The pension is fixed and inflation increasing day by day and on the top of it the interest rates on fixed deposit on diminishing pattern.The long life has become curse. the day is not far when EPS95 pensioners also shall start committing suicide like farmers.
As per the directives of Supreme Court of India pension to the members need to be calluculated and paid on the basis of remittance of EPF cont ributions and not on restricting to Rs. 6500 per month.
It is true that only members of un-exempted EPF establishments were the petitioners before the
hon’ble court blut it is to be borne in mind by EPFO was granted on the sole consideration that they
were payint higher rate of interst to members. In any event Pension Fund was managed by EPFO and contributions to the fund remtted to them. One fails to comprehened as to the difficulty of epfo to extend similar benefit of hiking pension to exempted trlust members if they opt to remit the differential contributions as with the case of un-exempted epf members. The supreme court directive on SLP did not speak of un-exempted trust members but it should not misunderstood the EPFO should deny the benefits. The pronouncements of Supreme Court orders being in law and were binding in nature. Whenever, it was silent on a particular point it should be interpreted to the best advantage of epf pensioners. It is high time that EPFO granted the benefit of hiking of pension at par with the other epf pensioners lest it opens flood gates of similar petitions before the Hon’ble court.
Ramakrishna Pantula
When SC order does not differentiate between pensioners from exempted and unexpected organisations, PF commissioner (Pension) cannot assume that since the appellants to SLP 33032-33033 of 2015 were from unexemoted organisations, order given cannot be made applicable to pensioners from exempted organisations. Courts statement that ‘a beneficial scheme…. ought not to be allowed to be defeated.. ‘ needs to be emphasized. Moreover, they have admitted in their letter of 31.05.17 that pension scheme of such exempted employers were also being managed by PF authorities. When they have to recover the amount from employees of unexemoted employees what prevents them from extending the same facility to employees from exempted organisation.. It would have been unwieldy for PF authorities to administer such a large group of employees having different wage structure and monitor it properly, and hence to ease their pressure had directed large organisation to manage this by forming trusts (exempted only for managing PF). However the contribution to EPS 1995 was being remitted to PF authorities like that of unexempted organisations. So why discriminate Now. Let them intimate the refund to be made by employees based on average salary of certain period prior to his retirement and the amount of pension he would be eligible. Let the verdict be not interpreted to conveniently deprive a large number of beneficiaries under EPS 1995. Many organisations gave shut their shops and employees of such organisations cannot get concurrence of their employers. Depriving these employees by government would be a major blow, which needs to be dealt with in a humanitarian manner Hope concerned people in authority take note of this and do justice.
With kind regards,
Yes. This circular is legally not correct. The central Board of Trustees is to take final decision. I think the CBT will consider the exempted establishment,s appeal and reverse the order dt.31.3.2017. If anybody approach court seeking clarification, the court will definitely make it clear that there should not be any partiality whether it is exempted or unexempted.
As per Supreme Court verdict the circular dated is not correct. It is against the Supreme power of Supreme Court Order.The circular says adjustment of contributions of EPF Account to pension Account is not possible. What prevents the Refund of difference of pension fund is received by EPFO and credited in their respective Accounts of Retired EPF Members of EPF Trust, formed with the concurrence of EPFO at that time. It seems that EPFO don’t want to implement the orders fully. If the Trust EPF Members not eligible for revised pension ordered by Supreme Court, how they are at present sanctioning EPF pension at present for the EPF Pension contribution for RS,6500- by the EPF Trust.The EPFO should have positive approach.All are EPF members only.They should not be discriminated.
As per circular dated 31-5-2017 of EPFO,SIGNED BY MUKESH KUMAR, exempted establishment pensioners are not eligible for enhancement of pension on full salary.This is a clarification issued.
E.P.F.O. being a STATE as defined under Indian constitution ,is denying the benifit to this set of employees and driving them for litigation.WHY THIS TYPE OF PARTIALITY FOR E.P.F PENSIONERS OF 1995 EXEMPTED ESTABLISHMENT ANS NON EXEMPTED ESTABLISHMNET. CAN ANY BODY EXPLIN THIS?