24 November 2017
I am a retired person drawing EPS pension from 2013 having worked in non-exempt company. As per recent news article in TOI, EPS pension elibility is on full salary based on SC ruling and amendment to EPS regulation. My question - can I now seek revision in my pension based on this ruling though I retired in 2013 itself? If yes, how should I go about to claim it.
26 November 2017
Status note on the imolement?tion of decisiOq o,f,Ilontble Suorelne Qourt inthe matter of SLP No. 33032-33033 of 2015 on coFtribution to DensionFund under EPS. 1995 exceeding the waep limit of Rs.5000/- or Rs. 6500/:ner month 'Backorcund Ittl;yuc'tiprts h(tvc ltcc:tt i.s,t'trccl to tthe fietd ofices of EPFO vide communicalian dated 23-03-20t7 for can1tliancc ct/'the obserttations and directioru pqssed by the Hon'ble Suprente Court in petirian(s) Jbr Spe cial Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).19954nU 5 arising out ofSLP No.33032-33033 of 20l5 tqton approval of the scute by PEIC (sub committee of CBT),(llT in its 2l 5't' nreeting held on t9- t 2-2016 and MOL&E, Govt. af India. 2. Be.fore 0J.10.2016, that is the date of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Courr in the ufitrc,said mailer. pensioy on higher u,ages was extended only to those members of the EPS-95 v,hct were trtermittecl to opt .fbr contribution on higfter wages in the EPS-9J as per theprovi,so to clause I I6) oJ'the Pension Scheme. -t. ('lqriJicaticnc,lo.yec.l).ln the above backgrourrd the following points are placed for information:- (i) ljPl.O rkrcs ngr dillbrentiate between the employees of Unexempted and Exempted Establishment unc{er Providentfund, with regard to.benefits under EPS-95. However,EPFOhas to distinguish bdtween'tlrose E,PS,members who have paid monthly contribution onacruallhigher salary to EPFO vis-A-vis tHose who have paid contributionlimited to the ceilingarnorrnt or lorver amount. (ii) l)irections have Lreen issued to extend the benefits in complianc€ to the Hon'ble Suprernc Court order to all rrrernbcrs of EPS-95, rvhose Contributions on actual/higher salaryinclucling l)[: and Pcnsiott tvits t'eesived in the EPFO account. (iii) Above tacilit.v lbr granting revised pension is to be made by adjusting the requisite arrluLurt of'conributiorr ll'onr I)F account of EPFO to Pension aqcount of EPFO. (ir,) 1'[c clirccrigrrs ot'rhc llon'ble Supreme court was specific fbr the category of lrroviclcnr lirncl rrrcnrbcrs who harl already exercised the Joint option both front the employerurrci cmployce untler pora 26(6) of the Employees provident fund Scheme, 1952 forcoritriburiol'l on ac:rual salary but had not given option for contribution to the pension fund onactual salary untler limploy,'ees pension Scheme, 1995 under clause ll(3) of the Emplqyees l)ertsion Schertte. I 995. (v) 'l'trese directions of thq Hon'ble Supreme c'ourt in the instant casc implies directions ortlr'lbr (a) the EPF rnenrbers Lrpon whom the provisions of para 26(6) of EPF Scheme 1952
26 November 2017
where rhe employer has deposited l2o/o of actual salary to thc account of the provident Fund Commissionir fbr which the Provident Fund Csmmissioner is rcquired to ds adjustments of accounts only. Therefore, the order is not applicable to those EPS Member for whom thecontribution on higher salary has not been received by EPFO. (vi) ln additiop ro rhe aboyi. it has been found that the EPFO is neithcr tcgaly liablo nor hnahcially capable to pay benefit in respect of permns foryhom !h: corfltsBondlng monthly rernirtances have not blen received by EPFO. The settlement on higher wages leads to higherf-rnancial outflow than inflow leading to subslantial defisit in the pension account. As suchpension account will be unsustainable in case liabilities areundeftaken without conespondingreceipt. (vii) As some petitions have been filed by such non eligible catrgory of employces in the uuriou, High Courts for extending the facilities of Pension on aptual salary exceeding sratutory timit ro them also, it fias been felt prudent by Employecs.Provident Fund Organization to get the matter heard by the Hon'ble Supremo Court through the petition for transfer of all .oi"r filed in Hon'ble High Courts at various benches so as to have a uniformdirection and finality in the matter. (viii) Accordingly, petition tbr transfer of all such cases have alrcady been frled in thc Hon'ble Supreme Coun and the matter is sub'judice. (ix) Under the circumstances, explained as above, any furthcr action in this regard can betaken after the outcomc of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petitions filed.
26 November 2017
Under the circumstances, explained as above, any furthcr action in this regard can be taken after the outcomc of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petitions fiiled.
CAclubindia
