Amid pleas for higher pension, EPFO staff ask head office for guidelines on Supreme Court order
Contents News/Article Date: 30th November 2022
Relating to which Act The Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
Applicable to which State: All the establishments in the States with PF coverage
Type: The Hindu News Report
Pertains to employers and employees
Relevance of this news: Karma Management Global Consulting Solutions Pvt. Ltd is in the business of Payroll, Outsourcing and Regulatory Compliances from its inception in 2004 and since then, has brought in a lot of efficiencies and technological upgradations with experts on its roll, to ease the hassles of Payroll Processing, Temp Staffing On-boarding, Regulatory and Payroll compliances by providing customized solutions to all its elite clients.
UNDER EPF
The contributions are payable on maximum wage ceiling of Rs. 15000/-
The employee can pay at a higher rate and in such case employer is not under any obligation to pay at for an International Worker, wage ceiling of 15000/- is not applicable.
UNDER EPS
Contribution is payable out of the employer’s share of PF and no contribution is payable by employee.
In this instance, the All India EPF Federation says, without any guidelines to implement the recent Supreme Court Order on higher provident fund (PF) pension, the staff in various offices of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) have asked their head office for a “direction” to address the queries from thousands of subscribers they have to face on a daily basis.
In a nutshell, Friday’s Supreme Court ruling gives EPFO members, who have availed of the EPS, another opportunity over the next four months to opt and contribute up to 8.33 per cent of their actual salaries – as against 8.33 per cent of the pensionable salary capped at Rs 15,000 a month
Benefits –
- As per the order, those who have not opted for the option to join the EPS and the eligible employees who couldn’t join the scheme before the cut-off date can do so within the next four months.
- Employees also don’t have to make the additional contribution of 1.16% of the salary in excess of Rs 15,000 per month. They can seek other legitimate sources, including the rate of contribution of the employers. The court suspended the implementation of this part for six months to enable a decision in this regard either through an amendment or by framing a new provision under the relevant act. The new law may envisage what to do with the additional amount contributed, including channelizing t them to the provident fund.
- The EPF members who have availed of the higher option but retired before September 1, 2014, will receive the benefits extended before the amendment.
Subject: Amid pleas for higher pension, EPFO staff ask head office for guidelines on Supreme Court order
For greater details, appended below is the complete news item
Amid pleas for higher pension, EPFO staff ask head office for guidelines on Supreme Court order
The Hindu – newspaper report
The All India EPF Federation has sought more employees in the pension wing as the workload of each office will be increased manifold Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation headquarters in New Delhi
Without any guidelines to implement the recent Supreme Court Order on higher provident fund (PF) pension, the staff in various offices of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) have asked their head office for a “direction” to address the queries from thousands of subscribers they have to face on a daily basis. The All India EPF Federation, an umbrella organisation of various unions working in the EPFO, in a letter, has demanded Central PF Commissioner Neelan Sami Rao for more employees in the pension wing as the workload of each office will be increased manifold once the offices start implementing the Supreme Court Order.
In the letter, the federation’s secretary general R. Krupakaran said the existing staff would not be able to handle the works in addition to their normal duties. “After the judgment, several members and pensioners are visiting the offices for guidance for submission of option for higher pension or for various queries regarding the judgment. However, the Pension Division of the head office is yet to issue any direction/guidelines so as to deal with the higher pension cases in line with the Supreme Court order,” Mr. Krupakaran said. He told The Hindu that without such a guideline it was difficult for the staff to answer such questions and take a decision on the applications already received.
Mr. Krupakaran said there were a number of doubts regarding the conditions laid down in the judgment for higher pension. “At the moment every officer is approaching the order with his or her own understanding. It should be stopped and the head office should come up with a uniform approach for all offices,” he added.
Pensionable salary
The federation said that in the recent judgement , the apex court upheld the R.C. Gupta case verdict on the matter and several pension cases had earlier been settled by calculating the pensionable salary by taking 12 months’ average based on various High Court orders. “Now, in the light of the apex court order, these pension payment orders are needed to be revised as 60 months’ average pensionable salary,” he said.
The letter said a good number of applications were expected to receive in the offices within four months and the workload in the pension wing of each office would be increased manifold. “It is also learnt that several field offices have started forming special cells by posting the staff from other sections. You may be aware that all offices nationwide are running with acute staff shortage in each cadre. Each Dealing Assistant/Section Supervisor/Accounts Officer is allotted two or more tasks in the Accounts branch and other sections. In such a distressing condition of staff, forming special cells by utilising the skeleton staff from other sections will definitely be suicidal,” the letter said.
Mr. Krupakaran raised guidelines on four issues, including the legal position of already revised cases of those who retired before September 1, 2014, without exercising an option and whether the pensions revised by taking 12 months’ average pensionable salary on the basis of High Court orders need be revised to 60 months average. He has also asked whether the options from those who retired after August 1, 2014, can be accepted. “How to regulate the 1.16% extra contribution in respect of already revised cases and new optees?” he asked.