Dear friends,
The EPFO, in their latest move, has served notice on those pensioners who are receiving higher pension amounts as per various High Court and Honorable Supreme Court judgments, and also with the approval of MOL@E. They are required to submit evidence for contribution as per EPS Proviso 26(6) and proof of EPFO rejection of the option made while in service, jointly by the employee and employer under Proviso 11(3). The notice warns that if these records are not submitted within 15 days, the higher pension will be withdrawn.
The pensioners who are currently receiving higher pension have already submitted records of 11(3) and 26(6) remittance in pursuit of that judgment. In fact, these records are not readily available with the pensioner. As per provident fund rules, no employee directly deals with EPFO. All transactions are conducted between the employer and EPFO. Obtaining such documents from the employer after 10-15 years of retirement within the specified time frame is not a simple task. However, for an agency determined to harass its members, such considerations are often overlooked.
EPFO is misinterpreting the Supreme Court judgment, and it is on this basis that they have initiated this controversial move. Paragraph 41 of the Honorable Supreme Court judgment dated 4.11.22 has reaffirmed the decision in the R C Gupta case. The Honorable Court excluded pre-1.9.2014 retirees from the scope of this new judgment as they were already covered by the earlier judgment dated 4.10.2016 in the R C Gupta case. Unfortunately, this seems to have been disregarded.
This latest move appears to be yet another attempt to push pensioners into litigation and prolong the case for another 5-10 years. Furthermore, there are indications that EPFO may be planning to apply a 60-month average salary for pensions instead of the 12-month average that pre-01-09-2014 retirees are currently receiving. They may cite the 04.11.22 judgment to support this change, as the Honorable Supreme Court had endorsed the adjustment.
The portal provided for uploading documents is a reflection of the mindset of EPFO authorities. It appears to be unstable, as from yesterday early morning until now, the portal remains inaccessible. The deadline of March 03 remains unchanged!
Harid Vallyakam Ernakulam.
From India , Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1The EPFO, in their latest move, has served notice on those pensioners who are receiving higher pension amounts as per various High Court and Honorable Supreme Court judgments, and also with the approval of MOL@E. They are required to submit evidence for contribution as per EPS Proviso 26(6) and proof of EPFO rejection of the option made while in service, jointly by the employee and employer under Proviso 11(3). The notice warns that if these records are not submitted within 15 days, the higher pension will be withdrawn.
The pensioners who are currently receiving higher pension have already submitted records of 11(3) and 26(6) remittance in pursuit of that judgment. In fact, these records are not readily available with the pensioner. As per provident fund rules, no employee directly deals with EPFO. All transactions are conducted between the employer and EPFO. Obtaining such documents from the employer after 10-15 years of retirement within the specified time frame is not a simple task. However, for an agency determined to harass its members, such considerations are often overlooked.
EPFO is misinterpreting the Supreme Court judgment, and it is on this basis that they have initiated this controversial move. Paragraph 41 of the Honorable Supreme Court judgment dated 4.11.22 has reaffirmed the decision in the R C Gupta case. The Honorable Court excluded pre-1.9.2014 retirees from the scope of this new judgment as they were already covered by the earlier judgment dated 4.10.2016 in the R C Gupta case. Unfortunately, this seems to have been disregarded.
This latest move appears to be yet another attempt to push pensioners into litigation and prolong the case for another 5-10 years. Furthermore, there are indications that EPFO may be planning to apply a 60-month average salary for pensions instead of the 12-month average that pre-01-09-2014 retirees are currently receiving. They may cite the 04.11.22 judgment to support this change, as the Honorable Supreme Court had endorsed the adjustment.
The portal provided for uploading documents is a reflection of the mindset of EPFO authorities. It appears to be unstable, as from yesterday early morning until now, the portal remains inaccessible. The deadline of March 03 remains unchanged!
Harid Vallyakam Ernakulam.
From India , Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Very well said. The EPFO has dropped to a level of an organization that has no public interest and is not meant for the benefits of the employees. The proof, as required under 26(6), cannot be submitted by many pensioners due to various reasons. There are offices that have been closed in the due course.
At the same time, all payments made by the employer should be available in the EPFO server itself. However, they will insist that the pensioners should bring it just to delay the process.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
At the same time, all payments made by the employer should be available in the EPFO server itself. However, they will insist that the pensioners should bring it just to delay the process.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.