Skip to main content

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.

Note. The Judgement copy is not editable and hence I am unable to attach. Please check this in web.
Lawshastra

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MCS MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY BYE LAWS 101 TO END

MCS BYE LAWS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST 101 TO END 101. If all the business on the agenda of the General Body Meeting of the Society cannot be transacted on the day on which the General Body Meeting is convened, the meeting shall be postponed to any other suitable date as may be decided by the Members present at the meeting, however not later than 30 days from the date of the meeting. 102. The Chairman of the Society shall preside over all General Body Meetings of the Society, in case if the Chairman is absent or if present and is unwilling to preside, the Members present may elect a person from amongst themselves to preside over the meeting. 103. No proxy or a holder of power of attorney or letter of authority shall be eligible to attend a General Body Meeting of the Society on behalf of a Member of the Society. 104. Voting right of a Member and the Associate Member of the Society shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of ...
4 comments
Read more

MCS ACT: Encroachment /usage of Common Area by Flat Owners - Highlights of bye laws and the role of MC/General Body

The Managing Committee has to read the bye laws in harmony and adopt a standard process as approved by the General Body   Almost Every Society has conflicts or even fist fights on usage of common areas, especially the parking, the passage outside the flats and other areas meant for east of movement and common utility. As a Building lay out, and common areas differ accordingly to the size/class of buildings and also the category of flats , it is essential to review the relevant bye laws and formulate a policy with uniform norms and permitting fair use. What is permissible and fair use again depends on the unique size and design of a building, it is imperative to evolve a robust policy post deliberations at a General Body of Members.  Bye Law No 165. Penalties for breaches  Bye Law No 165(a)  The meeting of the General Body of the Society may prescribe penalties for different breaches of the Bye-laws of the Society. The Secretary of the Society, under instruct...
1 comment
Read more

PoSH Act: ICC of the Employer of the Complainant (Victim) is also empowered to conduct enquiry -Path-breaking Ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

 KEY POINTS BY LAWSHASTRA - FULL JUDGEMENT APPENDED BELOW   This path-breaking judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has well enunciated the objectives of the VISHAKA Guidelines and the PoSH Act, while spelling out the jurisdictional aspects of the “Employer” Crystal clear.  Precisely, the jurisdictional challenge by the Appellant in the present case, inter alia relates to whether the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as “ICC”) constituted at a certain Department of the Government of India can entertain a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “POSH Act”) against the Appellant who was working at a different Department of the Government of India at the relevant time.  Key Points for reference   PoSH Act. (extracts) Section 2(a)  “(a) “aggrieved woman” means -  in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or n...
Post a Comment
Read more