Scribd
Upload
108 views10 pages

Appeal Minister MOL&E 111

ee

Uploaded by

rahul
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
108 views10 pages

Appeal Minister MOL&E 111

ee

Uploaded by

rahul
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 10
What you do not know By Mail GBI/MOL&E02 18" September 2017 To, Shri Santosh Kumar Gangwar, Hon'ble Minister of State (Independent Charge) Labour & Employment, GOI, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi ~ 110119 Sub: EPFO Interim Circular Know what you do not know Respected Sir, On behalf of EPS 95 Pensioner of Exempted Establishment, I would like to bring out the things ‘not known to you and your ministry regarding issue of EPFO interim advisory No: Pension -I/ 12/33/ EPS Amendment / 96 Vol 1/4432 Dated 31-05-2017. At the outset, it will not be out of ‘context to say that this has been issued without the approval of CBT / MOL&E / GOI for not extending the benefit of pension revision on actual/ higher salary to the pensioners of exempted establishments. (Copy attached ~ Annexure I). Do you know ~No! No! No!!! ‘What you know ‘You are aware of EPFO proposal based on Apex Court order in SLP 33032-33033 of 2015 to allow members of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 who had contributed on higher wages exceeding the statutory wage ceiling of Rs. 6500/- in the Provident Fund to divert 8.33 % of the salary exceeding Rs. 6504/- to the pension fund with up to date interest as declared under EPF Scheme, 1952 from time to time to get the benefit of pension on higher salary on receipt of Joint option of the Employer and Employee. You and your ministry is also aware of your approval conveyed to EPFO vide letter dated 06-03-2017 after getting approval of GOL On 23-03-2017, EPFO had issued directive to it all offices across India for implementation — copy of EPFO circular No Pension -I/12/33/ EPS amendment / 96 Vol IL / 34007 dated 23-03- 2017 attached (Annexure I) Know - what you and your ministry do not know As Lexpericnced, most of the times we beat around the bush. For knowing the problem, we take considerable time and solving it takes very less time once it is known. With this in mind and after continuous involvement for three months, Respected Sir, I, on behalf of all EPS 95 pensioners of exempted establishment, intend to share as to what went wrong so that they get justice. What you do not know 1. Issue of interim advisory dated 31-05-2017 —_Do you know : No! No!! No!!! Suddenly after nearly more than two months, EPFO HQ without the approval of CBT or MOLE, issued an interim advisory No: Pension -I/ 12/ 33/ EPS Amendment / 96 Vol 11/4432 Dated 31-05-2017 (Annexure D, asking its offices across India, not to extend the benefit of pension revision on actual/ higher salary to the pensioners of exempted establishments. 2. EPFO granted benefit to exempted establishments ~ Do you know: No! No!! No!!! Well before issue of interim advisory dated 31-05-2017, EPFO offices across India sent letters to exempted and non-exempted establishments asking for the details ofits members, (only petitioners) eligible for the benefits of enhanced pension and already granted the benefit as per court orders to petitioners of nine exempted establishments. Instrumentation Limited, Palakkad Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore (fact) ITI Ltd, Bangalore ‘Airports Authority of India (AAI) Kerala State Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd (KSCADB) Kerala Minerals & Metals Lid, kollam (KM&M) Kerala State Inland Navigation Corporation (KNCO) Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation (KAMCO) Malabar Cement In reference to above, you may peruse letter No. KR/KKD/14574/AB 5(5)/2016-17 Dated 26-08-2016 of Assistant PF Commissioner, EPFO, Kozhikoda to M/s Instrumentation limited, Palakkad. (Copy attached — Annexure Til) 3. Is 31-05-2017 interim advisory legal? Not No!! No!!! Do you know Respected Sir, Beware! EPFO will say that legal opinion has been sought for interim advisory dated 31-05-2017. Yes the statement of EPFO is correct but EPFO deliberately suppressed / concealed many facts while seeking legal opinion, Some of them are: + Fact suppressed / concealed from LA regarding grant of benefit to petitioner of many exempted establishments as brought out earlier. © Only Apex Court judgment dated 04-10-2016 placed before LA. Information about all other court cases Suppressed / concealed from LA at the time of seeking legal opinion, ‘© Details regarding the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 31-03-2016 wherein the petitioners were also from Exempted Establishment i.e, FACT Ltd What you do not know 4, Do you know about eligibility of exempted establishment — Not No!! No!!! would like to bring to your notice that EPS 95 members of both exempted and non- exempted establishments ae eligible for benefit. Ths i evident from Item 3 of PEIC ‘meeting held on 08-12-2016 which has been approved in 217" meeting of CBT held on 19- 12-2016, For ready reference, Item 3 is reproduced below: “Quote” Item no. 3 — Implementation of Supreme Court orders related to employees pension scheme ‘The agenda item was deliberated at length and the committee unanimously decided to comply with the orders of the hon’ble Supreme court in SLP No 33032-33033 of 2015 in the matter of Shri R.C. Gupta & others and in respect of similar cases to avoid further litigation in this regard. However, it was agreed that compliance may be made immediately in respect of the provident fund and pension members including superannuated cases whose accounts are maintained by EPFO as their details are already available with EPFO and contribution on higher wages has been received by EPFO. Their pension settlement may be regulated in accordance with the order of the hon’ble Supreme Court by taking joint option from the employee and the employer and transfer/payment to pension fund as per details of payable contribution with interest In respect of those members of exempted provident fund trusts whose contribution on higher ‘wages has not been received by EPFO, it was decided that their cases may be examined on verification of books of record of the exempted establishment and the trust regarding compliance to provident fund and pension fund as per the provisions of EPS Scheme 1952 ‘and employees pension scheme 1995 and the information may be submitted to the committee. “unquote” Itis thus evident that PEIL committee recommended benefit for exempted as well as non- ‘exempted establishment, PEIL committee recommendations are for avoiding further litigation whereas EPFO has created situation for litigation by issuing interim advisory no: pension -1/12/33/EPS amendment / 96 Vol 11/4432 dated 31-05-2017. It is beyond any bodies guess that CPFC has not only approved the issue of interim advisory but also as a Chairman of PEIL committee cleared eligibility of pensioners of exempted establishment in item 3 of 38" PEIL committee as brought out earlier. ‘Whenever the matter of relief comes up, EPFO states that the petitioners in Supreme Court judgment dated 04-10-2016 of R.C. Gupta & Ors Vs RPFC are from non-exempted establishment. In the RC Gupta’ SLP also, there is a mention of RPEC & ors vs A. Majeed Kunju case and in this order, two SLP’s were of pensioners from Exempted Establishments = FACT. Whatyou do not now 5. Do you know about EPFO Actions—No! No!! Not! EPFO is conveying denial to the applicants of exempted establishment in the context of interim advisory which is illegal — Not approved by MOLA&E,/ GOI. (Copy attached ~ ‘Annexure IV). Action of EPFO is not only contempt of court but also violation of code of conduct. Do you know~No! No! No!!! Several writs have been filed by members of exempted establishments. As I understand, EPFO has filed counter affidavits / Review Petitions and as such the subject advisory is sub- judice. Hence it is wrong rather misleading on part of EPFO to justify their action taking shelter of an impugned advisory (Annexure I. Do you know —No! No! No!!! Intention of bringing out things not known to you and your ministry is to arm you for making Justice to about 10, 00,000 EPS 95 pensioners of exempted establishments. Respected Sir, at no point of time, EPFO pleaded for differentiation / discrimination of exempted and non-exempted establishment while obtaining approval for advisory dated 23-03-2017 (Annexure I) from CBT/MOL&E/GOI. If so, raising such differentiation / discrimination in 31- 05-2017 interim advisory (Annexure 1) is deliberate, intentional attempt of EPFO. Wrong interpretation / twisting of judgment of Apex Courts and concealing / suppressicin of facts by EPFO is forcing the EPS 95 pensioners of exempted establishments to go for litigation who are earning meager pension ranging from Rs. 1000/- to Rs 2500/- In view of above facts placed before you, Respected Sir, I request your interventio © To order withdrawal of controversial, illegal, illogical, discriminatory and erroneous interim advisory No Pension -/12/33/EPS amendment / 96 Vol 11/4432 dated 31-05-2017 (Annexure 1D issued by EPFO without any competence — No approval of CBT/MOL&E/GOI. ‘© To direct CPFC for immediate implementation of EPFOs directive already issued on 23-03- 2017 (Annexure II) approved by CBT/MOL&E/GOL Your swift and prompt action will help about 10, 00,000 pensioners of exempted establishments to live a dignified life in the autumn of their life. With sincere regards, acormnane on. 99-2017 8378971828, tolmaregh@ pmail.com To, No: Pension-VI2/S¥EPS Amendment96 Vol.It , Cu? Amnexure 1. CPaye tere) Telephone: 26196236 anturdt fire Fifer aot (orc tomes, se CAT) EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (Wiristy of Labour & Employment, Govt of India) ‘px arte / Head Office ser far wey, 14-sbosrt wr te, 3f Ra-110 oF, Bravistya Nigh Bhawan, 14, Brita Cama Place, New Dethi~ 110 066, Dated: 31 MAY 2017 AILACCs (Zonal Offices) All Regional P-P. Commissioner (In-Charge of Regions), All officers-in-charge of SROs. Subject:- AMlowing members of the EPS'9S the benefit of the actual salary in the Pension Fund exceeding ‘wage limit of either Rs. £000/- 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 of 2016 arising out of SLP No. 33032-33033 of 2015 — reg. Please arrange to refer this office letter No. Pension-I/12/3/EPF/Amendtments/96/Vol-1 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 employces of EPF exempted establishments. In this context, its informed as under: 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. All the appeltant employees in the aforesaid case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were from tunexempted 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 Aet in respect of the said employees was on actual salary and not on the ceiling limit of either Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6500 coe Exercise of option uttler 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, © 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 als. Its not contemplated inthe judgment. 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 manazed 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. Amnexuse I CPage 2 of2> @ ‘The matter was placed in the 40 PEIC meeting. As decided in the 40" meeting of the PEIC the matter will be placed before the CBT. In the interim, itis 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 forthe benefits contemplated in the judgment as per the aforesaid Hon’ ble Supreme Court order. (This issues withthe approval of CPC) Yours fajthfully, (Mukesh Kuhiht ‘Regional PF Commissioner-I (Pension) antenf we fiero er eR SoA EER EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (ess abut & Escort, Got Ind) RES Hs Ot ster Fr re RE Brady; Not haan 6, an Cama Pi, New EM 110 86, ‘No: Peasion-1/12/33/ES Amendment/96/Vol.11/“. Dated: 32-03-2017 ce ™ —utneplonal PF. Commissioner, “SM 23 MAR 207 Regional Office/Sub-Regiona! Ofice. Subject Allowing members of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 the benefit of ‘the actual salary in the Ponsion Fund excoeding wage limit of either Re. '5000/- or Rs. 6500 per month from the effective date respectively as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's onder in SLP No.33022-33033 of 2015 — Regarding. sr, ‘The mattor of determination of persionable salary exve-ding statutory wages ceting ‘and earcise af option under dele'ed proviso to Para 1 (3) ofthe PS, 95 nas examined Ho the light ofthe Hone Supreme Cours Odin SLP Ne. 33032-33033 of 2015, 2) The Morte Apex court in $i.” No 33032-33013 of 2015 observed thatthe reference to. he date of commencem:nt of ihe Scheme or the date on which the selery exceeds the ‘ing lik oe dats fram wich the opt on exercised are to be reckoned with for caeinton of Pensionabie salary. The said aaiet are rot cutoff dates t» determine the eigiity oF the lmployer-e “ployee to indicate ter option under the proviso 0 Clause 11(-) of tne Pension ‘Schame. If 985 further been observed that benefial Scheie, cught not to be alowed to be Sefeated by rference to @ at-of date, nartiuady, in & skustion where (2s in We presen ase] te employer had deposted 12% ofthe etual salary and nat 1% of the caling iene Rs. $000 or RS. 6500/- per march, asthe case may be. In 2 station where. the depost of the employers share at 12% has been on the actu -alary and net the celing amour, the P ovdent Fund Commissioner 0:0 see a xin (fal seh amo.nts that the Concer.) employes may have taken or withdrawn frm ther Provident fund Account before grnting them the bneis of the prowsa to Caves 123) of te Penson Scheme. Once such ‘3 return 13 mace In whicheve* cases such setum t Cus, consequent! benefit in terms of this ode wil be grante tthe sud express Thus & member conerouting to the Provident Fura on the sages exceeding the ‘tatitory celing oF wo had coniub.ted to the Provident Fund On. the wages excacing the Statutory ceiing cannot be debarree fon exercsing tie opbon to conrbute on such Maher "w9ges tthe pension fund. (Copy of the order ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court enclosed). Annexuse IF C Page dof a2) 5 Annexuse Ir (Page 2 ofa) J) raceringy a propos was s:6t 1 MOLBE fo afow members of the Employes mason scree, 1598 wh had conrbutd on Ngher wares exceed the Sattry MORE {ateg of Ro, ban the Poe Fund to divert 830% of he salary exe. Re 63 Oto the Pesion fund wa up toate eres a Cocoa uncer Eb" Schone, 19-2 fhm ine to She ge opr hr ay on en rk ot of Eros . and Enoloves, 4) The MOLAE wi Jeter dated 16.03.2017 as conveyed 1 approval to allow I Imombere of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 who ned contbuted on highe! wages ‘aceedg the statstory woge cling of Rs, 6500)-n the Provdent Fund \o diver 8.35% Of the Stary exceeding 85.6500) ta the Pension Fund wth up ta date inte est a declared under EP Scheme, 1952 from time to me to get the benefit of pension on higher salary on receipt of joint open of te Eriloyer ee Empl yes. (copy enclosed for ready refcrence) The offcare 1p cha:ge of a Fold offices ave directed to take necessary action accordingly In accordance with the order of the Hone Supreme Court in SUP NO.33032- ‘35033 of 2035 as approved by the Government and as per the provisans of tre EFF & MP Ac, 1952 ana Schemes Famed ther= under. (Ms tenses withthe appeoial of CPC.) ‘Yours taithtuty, (aus, (Br. SK. Thakur) ‘Addl. Central PF Convmissioner, HQ(Pension) copy to: ACC HQ(IS) for information with request for making necessary changes in the Software. Anne xuse { Raped

You might also like