Allowing members of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 the benefit of the actual salary in the Pension Fund exceeding wage limit
tf,~T.ml ~ f.mi ~
( ~ ~ mrTR ~ \ffirf 'ITTEMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
(Ministry of Labour & Empl(1fment, Govt. of India)
~ ~ I Head Office
~m~. 14-~~u:m.~~-llCi(JM,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bh1ka111 Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066.
o: Pe'1s on-I/1 2/ 33/EPS Amendment/96/ Vol.II / (\ Dated: ~3-03-2017
,o, ~\~
All Regional P.F. Commissioner,Regional Office/Sub-Regional Office.
Subject - Allowing members of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 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 SLP No.33032-33033 of 2015 -
Regarding.
The matter of determ·nat;on of pensionable salary exceeding statutory wages ceiling
ano exerose of option under deleted proviso to Para 11(3) of the EPS, 95 was exam neo m t'le
;1ght of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order in SLP No.33032-33033 of 2015.
2) The Hon'ble Apex court in SLP No.33032-33033 of 2015 observed that the refere1ce
to the date of commencement of the Scheme or the date on which the salary exceeds t~e
ceiling limit are dates from which the option exercised are to be reckoned with for ca cu at1on o:
pensionable salary. The said dates are not cut-off dates to determine the eligib1I t'y o: ·-e
employer-employee to indicate their option under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pe 5!
Scheme. It has further been observed that a beneficial Scheme, ought not to be allov-.ec :o :defeated
by reference to a cut-off date, particularly, in a situation where (as in tre :)-ese-:
case) the employer had deposited 12% of the actual salary and not 12% of the ce1 ng z
Rs. 5000/- or Rs. 6500/- per month, as the case may be.
In a situation where the deposit of the employer's share at 12% has oee- - ·-e
actual salary and not the cei ling amount, the Provident Fund Commissioner cou d see· :: -e:: ... -"
of all such amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withd-aw, :_o""" their
Provident fund Account before granting them the benefits of the prov so to Cla-SE : :(3 of the
Pension Scheme. Once such a return is made in whichever cases s_:- :=:--.. 1s due,
consequential benefits in terms of this order will be granted to tre sa·e; e--: - ees.
Thus a member contributing to the Provident Fu--c o- · --2 ~c;:s exceeo ng the
statutory ceiling or who had contributed to the Provident Fu G o- --e •.ages exceed,ng the
Statutory ceiling cannot be debarred from exerc1s '19 ~.,e c:J: o- :c co-~~ :J-~e C"' S-C" ii gher
wages to the pension fund. (Copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court enclosed).
3) Accordingly a proposal was sent to MOL&E 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 6500/- 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.
4) The MOL&E vide letter dated 16.03.2017 has conveyed its approval 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.6500/- 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. (copy enclosed for ready reference}
5) The officers in charge of all field offices are directed to take necessary action
accordingly in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.33032-
33033 of 2015 as approved by the Government and as per the provisions of the EPF & MP Act,
1952 and Schemes framed there under.
(This issues with the approval of CPFC.)
Copy to:
Yours faithfully,
~
(Dr. S.K. Thakur)
Addi. Central PF Commissioner, HQ(Pension)
ACC HQ(IS) for information with request for making necessary
changes in the Software.
( ~ ~ mrTR ~ \ffirf 'ITT
(Ministry of Labour & Empl(1fment, Govt. of India)
~ ~ I Head Office
~m~. 14-~~u:m.~~-llCi(JM,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14, Bh1ka111 Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066.
o: Pe'1s on-I/1 2/ 33/EPS Amendment/96/ Vol.II / (\ Dated: ~3-03-2017
,o, ~\~
All Regional P.F. Commissioner,
Subject - Allowing members of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 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 SLP No.33032-33033 of 2015 -
Regarding.
The matter of determ·nat;on of pensionable salary exceeding statutory wages ceiling
ano exerose of option under deleted proviso to Para 11(3) of the EPS, 95 was exam neo m t'le
;1ght of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order in SLP No.33032-33033 of 2015.
2) The Hon'ble Apex court in SLP No.33032-33033 of 2015 observed that the refere1ce
to the date of commencement of the Scheme or the date on which the salary exceeds t~e
ceiling limit are dates from which the option exercised are to be reckoned with for ca cu at1on o:
pensionable salary. The said dates are not cut-off dates to determine the eligib1I t'y o: ·-e
employer-employee to indicate their option under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pe 5!
Scheme. It has further been observed that a beneficial Scheme, ought not to be allov-.ec :o :defeated
by reference to a cut-off date, particularly, in a situation where (as in tre :)-ese-:
case) the employer had deposited 12% of the actual salary and not 12% of the ce1 ng z
Rs. 5000/- or Rs. 6500/- per month, as the case may be.
In a situation where the deposit of the employer's share at 12% has oee- - ·-e
actual salary and not the cei ling amount, the Provident Fund Commissioner cou d see· :: -e:: ... -"
of all such amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withd-aw, :_o""" their
Provident fund Account before granting them the benefits of the prov so to Cla-SE : :(3 of the
Pension Scheme. Once such a return is made in whichever cases s_:- :=:--.. 1s due,
consequential benefits in terms of this order will be granted to tre sa·e; e--: - ees.
Thus a member contributing to the Provident Fu--c o- · --2 ~c;:s exceeo ng the
statutory ceiling or who had contributed to the Provident Fu G o- --e •.ages exceed,ng the
Statutory ceiling cannot be debarred from exerc1s '19 ~.,e c:J: o- :c co-~~ :J-~e C"' S-C" ii gher
wages to the pension fund. (Copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court enclosed).
3) Accordingly a proposal was sent to MOL&E 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 6500/- 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.
4) The MOL&E vide letter dated 16.03.2017 has conveyed its approval 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.6500/- 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. (copy enclosed for ready reference}
5) The officers in charge of all field offices are directed to take necessary action
accordingly in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.33032-
33033 of 2015 as approved by the Government and as per the provisions of the EPF & MP Act,
1952 and Schemes framed there under.
(This issues with the approval of CPFC.)
Copy to:
Yours faithfully,
~
(Dr. S.K. Thakur)
Addi. Central PF Commissioner, HQ(Pension)
ACC HQ(IS) for information with request for making necessary
changes in the Software.
Note. The Judgement copy is not editable and hence I am unable to attach. Please check this in web.
Lawshastra
Comments