Bad News for EPS 95 Pensioners: Judgement delivered by the Kerala High Court order on 12 October 2018 in R/O WPC 13120 of 2015 and other matter has been stayed by Supreme Court

Effect and operation of the judgement delivered by the Kerala High Court order on 12 October 2018 in R/O WPC 13120 of 2015 and 602 of 2015 and connected matters that is more than 500 matter has been stayed by Supreme Court on 12 july 2021

Click Here to Download: SC Stay Order dt. 12.07.2021 in SLP 8547 of 2021 - KHC order dt 12.10.2018 in WPC 13120 & 602 of 2015

For information of all EPS 95 pensioners you will be astonished to know that the learn advocate general of India that is Mr. K K Venugopal has succeeded in obtaining stay order from the supreme court through the bench consisting of the Honorable Justice Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit and Honorable Justice Mr. Ajay Rastogi during the hearing of an SLP No. 8547/2021 on 12th July 2021 title Sandip Biswas RPFC Vs Jojo Jacob and arising out of impugned final judgement and order dated 6th November 2020 in CCC No. 1176 of 2019 passes by the high court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

The observations related to above information were on the basis of information provided by a concerned AOR of SC engaged in many WPs and also the stand taken by EPFO (through Mr. Siddharth, Advocate) before the Himachal High Court, Shimla on 13.07.2021 during the course of hearing an LPA and agreeing to EPFO’s statement reg. STAY GRANTED BY SC ON 12.07.2021, the said case had further been adjourned to 20.07.2021.

As Per detailed discussions with an eminent advocate of Kerala who has been engaged in several hundred cases by the pensioners at Kerala High Court (including CCC no. 1176 of 2019 which was reg. non compliance of orders dt. 12.10.2018 of KHC). This order dt. 06.11.2020 in Contempt cases challenged by EPFO in SC (SLP 8547 of 2021) was a common order deciding around 70-80 other connected similar matters too wherein the non compliance of order dt. 12.10.2018 had been agitated/ alleged. As per the interpretation of the aforesaid advocate, the stay order dt. 12.07.2021 will be applicable ONLY TO THOSE CASES WHICH HAD BEEN CHALLENGED BY EPFO IN SC THROUGH SLP NO. 8547 OF 2021.

His views are based on the text of the order dt 12.07.2021 which says that “Pending further consideration, the effect and operation of the judgment PRESENTLY UNDER CHALLENGE shall remain stayed.” The judgment under challenge was in the case CCC no. 1176/2019.

Now, which way the EPFO interprets the order dt 12.07.2021 will be known in the times to come and we have no other option but to wait & watch.

Credit Hon. Mr Parveen Kohli

 

 

Read More

Very IMP For EPS 95 Pensioners: 965 Review Petitions in the year 2021 by EPFO in the Kerala High Court with Proof See Now

965 Review Petitions in the year 2021 by EPFO in the Kerala High Court

(Source:  Website of Kerala High Court)

EPS 95 Higher Pension Case Hearing Date at Supreme Court

For all 67 Lakh EPS 95 Pensioners Information and Record

You will be astonished to know that in the year 2021 i.e., in about 6 months, EPFO has filed 965 Review Petitions (list attached) in the Kerala High Court.  Without any doubt, this can be inferred that EPFO seems to have filed Review Petitions in r/o all the WPs which had been decided against EPFO by the Kerala High Court (there might be some cases not relating to pension on higher wages)

Apart from above, 5 Writ Appeals have also been filed by EPFO in 2021.  Not sure as to whether these are relating to Writ Petitions regarding EPS’95 (Pension on higher wages).  List of some Writ Petitions filed in 2021 is also attached.

Click this Link to Download List of Review Petitions in the year 2021 by EPFO

CODE A

Read More

Good News For EPS 95 Pensioners: The Supreme Court is scheduled to open from 01-07-2021 Thursday, after vocational holidays.

EPS 95 Pensioners Higher Pension Cases Hearing Date

Dear friends, Greetings to all.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to open from 01-07-2021 Thursday, after vocational holidays.

1. The justice Mr.UU.Lalith is posted as ‘National Legalised Authority’ for the support and help of poor and other needy people to provide law support, and will be relieved from the present bench.

The 3 judges bench headed by Mr.UU.Lalith will be re arranged soon.

2. As you all may be well aware that our team of Advocates were on the job and after the final submission by our Advocates as directed by Mr.UU.Lalith bench, (7 Page reply to EPFO’s 661page affidavit) the case has been a fantastic turn towards-pensioners side and all the averments put forth by the EPFO were found to be bogus and not maintainable.

3. In view of the Kerala High Court judgments in RP. 267of 2021 in WPC 26944 of 2019 Dated 08-04-21 and RP.276 of 21 in WPC 30210 of 19 dated 09-04-2021 the review petitions cannot be filed as per law. Hence the same rule is even applicable to SC too and in all fairness SC will also reject the review petition, pending before SC. (kindly go through the judgments in this regard circulated to all)

4. In fact the EPFO and Govt. Advocates Mr.KK.Venugopal and Mr.Aryama Sundaram were briefed by one of our AORs personally regarding their wrong footing in the subject heading Finance matter and further seem to have pointed out that their rejection of enhanced pension was wrong and against Law.

5. The latest Madhya Pradesh High Court Order dated 08-06-2021 is very clear that the word jubjudice is for both petitioners and EPFO. Stoppage of revised pension, when the case is pending is highly condemnable, accordingly the PF Commissioner was fined Rs.5,000/- for the stoppage of enhanced pension and directed to reconsider the revised pension within 15 days. (MPHC judgment posted)

In another case the MP HC directed the EPFO authorities to consider revised pension to the Widow of expired pensioner vide WP. 25459 0f 18 dated 30-11-2018. (implementation portion is not known -old case)

6. As you know the meeting held with the Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr.NV.Ramana at Hyderabad Rajbhavan through our Telangana all pensioners and retired persons Association president and other leaders will definitely fetch a remarkable turn in our case in favour of petitioners. Thanks to the Association executives of Telangana.

7. In Madras High Court, the JAC Executives making all arrangements to face the case, after the normalcy is restored after Corona effect.

Thanks and all the best.

G.Murugaiyan, President, JAC.

Read More

Good News For EPS 95 Pensioners: Kerala High Court Dismisses Review Petition Filed By EPFO & CBT, Kerala High Court Order

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943

RP. No. 267 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 26944/2019

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26944/2019(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WPC:

1. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,  REPRESENTED BY THE CENTRAL PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER, BHAVISYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI-110 066

2. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EPF ORGANISATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017

BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 1 & RESPONDENTS 1 & 4 IN WPC:

1 T. RADHAKRISHNAN,  S/O. LATE THANKAPPAN ASARI, NEERCHALIL HOUSE, MANATHUPADOM ROAD, UNICHIRA, ERNAKULAM-682 033, (P.F.NO.KR/2729/175)(PPO NO.KR/ KCH/ 00083431)

2 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAVAN, RAFI MMARG, NEW DELHI-110 001

3 ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. NO.E-150 (D),REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-682 024

SRI K SUDHINKUMAR, SC

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This Review Petition is preferred seeking review of the judgment dated 18.2.2020 in W.P.(C) No.26944 of 2019. 

2. I have heard Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Sri. Prakash M.P., the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent.

3. It is by now settled that review of a judgment is permitted only when it is shown that the judgment suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record.

4. The contention advanced by the petitioner while seeking review of the judgment, is that though the challenge raised by the EPFO to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sasikumar P. V. Union of India and Ors.1 was repelled by the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.8658-8659 of 2019, a review petition filed against the judgment was entertained by the Apex Court and the same is pending. It is also submitted that the Central Government has also preferred an appeal and the same is pending. It is further submitted that their Lordships of the Division Bench in the judgment dated 21.12.2020 in W.A.No.944/2020 had expressed doubts about the correctness of Sasikumar (supra). According to the petitioner, as this Court in the judgment under Review placed profused reliance on Sasikumar (supra), due to the aforesaid reasons, the judgment is to be reviewed.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced.

6. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.

7. In Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and Others2, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is observed and the Apex Court had occasion to hold as follows in paragraph 13 to 18 as under:

“ 13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely states that it ‘may make such order thereon as it thinks fit’. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing ‘on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason’. The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which then judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection.

14. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, [(1995) 1 SCC 170] it was held that:

“8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47 Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court, in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations:

‘It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.’” 

15. A perusal of Order 47 Rule 1 shows that review of a judgment or an order could be sought: (a) from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason.

16. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047, this Court held that there are definite limits to the exercise of power of review. In that case, an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed which was allowed and the order passed by the Judicial Commissioner was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed. On an appeal to this Court it was held as under: (SCC p. 390, para 3) “It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.”

17. The judgment in Aribam case has been followed in Meera Bhanja. In that case, it has been reiterated that an error apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to review must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning. The following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 were also noted: “An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ.”

8. The petitioner has not been able to show that there is any error manifest on the face of the order. What is contended is that proceedings are pending before superior courts and in that view of the matter, the judgment ought to be reviewed. It is settled that while considering an application for review, the court must confine its adjudication with regard to the material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. It is also settled that review is not maintainable on the basis of a subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger bench of the court or of a superior court. A review petition can by no means be an appeal in disguise.

Having considered the matter in all perspectives, I find that the petitioner has not made out any grounds for review. This review petition will stand dismissed. 

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V 

NS JUDGE

Read More

EPS 95 Higher Pension Cases Hearing News: देश के 67 लाख EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों का बढ़ा इंतजार, भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश ने लिया बड़ा फैसला, EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों मामलों पर फिर से अनिच्छितता

EPS 95 HIGHER PENSION CASES NEXT HEARING DATE

देश के लगभग 67 लाख EPS 95 पेंशनधारक सुप्रीम कोर्ट में दाखिल EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों से जुड़े हुए हायर पेंशन के मामलों के पर सुनवाई के लिए इंतजार कर रहे हैं। EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों को आशा थी कि उनके मामलों पर 23, 24, 25 मार्च 2021 को सुनवाई हो जाएगी पर ऐसा नहीं हुआ और इन्हें 15 मार्च 2021 तक के लिए टाल दिया गया था। उसके बाद इन मामलों को 15 मार्च की जगह फिर से 22 अप्रैल 2021 तक के लिए टाल दिया गया था, पर उसी बीच सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा एक सर्कुलर जारी किया जिसमें कोविड-19 की स्तिथि को देखते हुए 22 अप्रैल 2021 से केवल महत्वपूर्ण मामलों को सुनवाई के लिए लिया जाएगा ऐसा कहा गया।

इसकी वजह से जो 22 अप्रैल 2021 को EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों से जुड़े हुए लगभग 60 मामले सुनवाई के लिए सूचीबद्ध किए गए थे तो उनकी जगह पर केवल 6 मामलों को सुनवाई के लिए लिया गया और EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों से जुड़ा हुआ एक भी मामला 22 अप्रैल 2021 को सुनवाई के लिए नहीं लिया गया।

उसके बाद हाल ही में भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश एन. वी. रमना ने बार के सदस्यों के साथ परामर्श के बाद दिल्ली में COVID-19 स्थिति के मद्देनजर शीर्ष अदालत की गर्मियों की छुट्टी को एक सप्ताह पहले ही शुरू करने के लिए सहमत हुए हैं । जिसकी वजह से EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों के मामलों के ऊपर जो अगली होने वाली सुनवाई है वह कब होगी इसके बारे में कोई अपडेट नहीं है।

एक बार फिर से 95 पेंशनधारकों के मामलों की सुनवाई के ऊपर अनिच्छितता दिखाई दे रही है क्योंकि जो गर्मियों की छुट्टियों को 1 सप्ताह पहले ही शुरू करने का फैसला लिया गया है। जिसकी वजह से अब EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों को 27 जून तक का इंतजार करना पड़ेगा क्यों कि 27 जून 2021 तक सुप्रीम कोर्ट को गर्मी की छुट्टि होगी। यानी इस दौरान सुप्रीम कोर्ट का कोई भी कामकाज नहीं होगा।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट का कामकाज 28 जून 2021 से शुरू होगा उसके बाद ही EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों के मामले हैं तो उनके ऊपर कब फैसला होगा तो इसके बारे में जानकारी मिल सकती है।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट बार एसोसिएशन (SCBA) के प्रतिनिधियों और सुप्रीम कोर्ट एडवोकेट ऑन रिकॉर्ड एसोसिएशन (SCAORA) और बार काउंसिल ऑफ इंडिया के साथ भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश एन. वी. रमना द्वारा आपात बैठक में निर्णय लिया गया ।

साथ ही भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश एन. वी. रमना ने कम से कम 60 बेड और अन्य सुविधाओं जैसे RT-PCR परीक्षण, COVID-19 टीकाकरण आदि के लिए चिकित्सा सुविधाओं की स्थापना के लिए उपयुक्त क्षेत्र प्रदान करने के लिए भी मंजूरी दी है।

SCBA अध्यक्ष विकास सिंह के अनुसार, भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश एन. वी. रमना ने अधिवक्ताओं के चैंबर ब्लॉक को COVID केयर यूनिट के रूप में उपयोग करने के लिए मंजूरी दी है।

तहसीलदार चाणक्यपुरी को व्यवस्था करने के लिए संक्षिप्त किया गया है ताकि भवन का निरीक्षण किया जा सके।

सुप्रीम कोर्ट बार एसोसिएशन (SCBA) ने इससे पहले भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश को लिखा था कि अप्पू घर परिसर में नवनिर्मित अधिवक्ता चैंबर बिल्डिंग को COVID-19 केयर सेंटर में बदलने के लिए वकीलों, कोर्ट स्टाफ और उनके परिवारों के हित के लिए जो COVID-19 केयर सेंटर में बदलें।

इस बड़े फैसले से फिलहाल EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों मामलों पर कब सुनवाई होगी इसके बारे में अभी कोई अपडेट नहीं है 22 अप्रैल को जो मामले सुनवाई के लिए सूचीबद्ध किए गए थे तो उन पर भी सुनवाई नहीं हुई है। ऐसे में गर्मियों की छुट्टियों का ऐलान सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा कर दिया गया है और उसे भी 1 सप्ताह पहले से ही शुरू करने का फैसला लिया गया है। इसकी वजह से अभी EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों को और लंबा इंतजार करना होगा। उम्मीद की जा रही थी कि पिछले महीने यानी 23, 24, और 25 मार्च को जो सुनवाई शुरू हुई थी तो उन सुनवाई के दौरान भी कोई अंतिम फैसला आ जायेगा पर EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों के मामलों को बार-बार टाल दिया गया जा रहा है।

23 24, 25 मार्च की सुनवाई के लिए 59 याचिकाएं क्रमांक 15 न्यायालय संख्या 3 में सूचीबद्ध थी। जिनमे से एक मामले की सुनवाई यानी SLP NO. 20,417/2017 जो की M/S Daiichi Sankyo Company Ltd बनाम OSKAR Investments Ltd पर सुनवाई होने के बाद सुनावाई हुई थी। उसके बाद EPS 95 मामलों को लिया जाना था। पर EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों को एक बार फिर से 13 अप्रेल 2021 फिर 15 अप्रेल 2021 और 22 अप्रेल 2021 को सुनवाई होनी थी।

 

Read More

EPS 95 Pensioners Latest News: Increase Minimum Meagre EPS 95 Pension from Rs. 1000 to 9000 + D.A Per Month to Chairman of International Labour Organisations

Demi official letter/EPCC/Nagpur.                                                                                     22nd April 2021

To,

Hon’ble Shri Apurva Chandra,

Chairman,

International Labour Organisation

Shram Shakti Bhavan,

Dear, hon. Apurva Chandraji,

Chairman of International Labour Organisations,

We Humble request to you sir that please accept our  Congratulations on the  High Designated Post of Chairman of International Labour Organisation.

I am Prakash Pathak, National General Secretary of Employees Pension (1995) Coordination Committee, Head Quarter, Nagpur,12.

We have already been requested to International Labour Orgnisation by mails for help us without any delay sir, but not taken any Pains about Painful Pensioners Pitiable Situation those who are working in 187 industries., Now Second Wave of COVID-19 Pendamic also sir.

Since last 2008 we are struggling for EPS 95 to improve the Peatiable, dying condition of the 68.80 lakes pensioners in covid Pendamic with Second Waves also. Not a single pair has been allotted in Budget.neither nor submitted any favourable Proposals to government for e.p.s 95 to increase the Pension by EFO in your resume also. In this regard. It should be acted upon on it, sir as per the provisions of scocial, constitutional fundamental Rights and Main Aims of EPFO which are Declared by Advertising d/-16 th November 1995.

Hon’ble Shri Neeraj Dangi M.P. Smt. Hema Malini, Smt. Navnit Rana, Shri Rajmani Patel, Shri Dharyasheel Mane and other M.P.s raised questions  In Loksabha and Rajyasabha 'Question hours' about the need to increase minimum meagre Pension from Rs. 1000/-to 9000/- + D.A Per Month.

A lot of representations have been given by us and various Trade Unions, EPS 95 Pensioners Associations demanded  to increase the minimum Pension with the amendment in the act, with consideration and the support with submitted amendment Report of Bhagat Singh Koshiyari Committee. In the year 2014 Unon Government had already been asked to EPFO about the implementation of Bhagatsing Koshiyari's report and how much amount is to be required. I urged and humble request to you that please look in to matters on humanity ground and help us sir . I have full confidence about you, do the  needful please ,sir

With Regards.

(Prakash Pathak )                                                              

National   General Secretary                           

 

Read More

EPS 95 Pensioners Higher Pension Cases: Supreme Court Office Report dt 12.4.2021 EPS'95 Cases See Now

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 50857 OF 2021

(Application for Intervention filed by Ms. Shilpa Liza George, Adv. in SLP Nos. 16721-22 of 2019)

THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT ORGANISATION & ANR                                          Petitioners

Versus

SUNIL KUMAR & ORS                                                                                                       Respondents

OFFICE REPORT

SLP NOS. 8658-59 OF 2019

The Special Leave Petition above mentioned along with connected matters were listed before the Hon’ble Court on 25.03.2021, when the Court was pleased to pass the following order:- 

“ List on 13.04.2021.” 

It is submitted that pursuant to this Hon’ble Court order dated 25.02.2021 Show cause notice was issued to all the respondents in both the matters through registered A.D. Post as well as through counsel for the petitioners.

SLP 8658-8659 OF 2019

It is submitted that Mr. Siddharth Advocate, has on 12.03.2021 filed Affidavit of proof of service in respect of all the respondents.

It is further submitted that Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Advocate has on 15.03.2021 filed an application for Impleadment to implead the applicants as party respondents alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance. The application is registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 39304 of 2021(copy of the application has been included in the paper books for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court).

Click Here to Download Complete Supreme Court Office Report

It is further submitted that Mr. K.V. Mohan, Advocate has on 17.03.2021 filed an application for Impleadment to implead the applicants as party respondents alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance. The application is registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 41095 of 2021(copy of the application has been included in the paper books for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court). It is further submitted that Mr. Udaya Aditya Banarjee, Advocate has on 17.03.2021 filed an application for Intervention on behalf of applicants to intervene in SLP Nos. 8658-59 of 2019 alongwith vakalatnama/appearance. The application is registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 41103 of 2021 (copy of the application have been included in the paper books for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court).

 

It is also submitted that pursuant to Hon'ble Court's order dated 25.02.2021, Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, Advocate has on 17.3.2021 filed written submission on behalf of respondent and copy of the same has been included in the paper books for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

It is submitted that Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Advocate has on 18.3.2021 and 19.3.2021, filed the Application for Impleadment to implead the applicants as party respondents alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance and he has also filed written submission on behalf of the Impleading Applicant. The same is registered as I. A. No. 42841/21(SLP 8658-59 of 2019) and copy of the same are being circulated for the kind perusal of Hon’ble Court.

It is further submitted that Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, Advocate has on 19.03.2021 filed an application for Impleadment to Implead the applicants as party respondents alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance. The application is registered as Interlocutory Application No. 42760 of 2021(copy of the application has circulated been included in the paper books for the kind perusal of Hon’ble Court).

It is further submitted that Mr. P. S. Sudheer, Advocate has on 20.03.2021 filed an application for Intervention on behalf of applicants to intervene in SLP Nos. 8658-59 of 2019 alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance. The application is registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 43083 of 2021 (copy of the application is being circulated for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

It is further submitted that Mr. Udaya Aditya Banarjee, Advocate has on 19.03.2021 filed Compliance of order short notes dated 25.2.21 in I.A. no, 41103/21 and in 16721-22/21 on behalf of applicants to intervene in SLP Nos. 8658-59 of 2019 alongwith vakalatnama/appearance. The same are being circulated for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

It is further submitted that Mr.A.V. Balan, Advocate has on 20.03.2021 filed counter affidavit on behalf of Respondents copy of the counter is being circulated for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

It is submitted that Mr. Siddharath Advocate for petitioner has on 22.03.2021 filed some miscellaneous documents Copies of Employees Provident Fund Act of 1952, Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, and Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 (Copies of the same are being circulated for the kind perusal of Hon'ble Court).

It is further submitted that Mr. Siddharath, advocate has on 22.02.2021 filed an application for permission to submit additional documents and compilation of additional judgment on 22.03.2021 Copies of the same are being circulated for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.

It is lastly submitted that Mr. Siddharath Advocate has on 22.03.2021 filed Rejoinder Affidavit on behalf of the Petitioners Copy of the Rejoinder Affidavit is being circulated for the kind perusal of Hon'ble Court.

SLP NOS. 16721-22 OF 2019

It is submitted that Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Advocate, has on 13.03.2021 filed Affidavit of proof of service in respect of all the respondents.

It is further submitted that Mr. Himinder Lal, Advocate has on 27.02.2021 and 18.03.2021 filed applications for Impleadment to implead the applicants as party respondents alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance. The applications are registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 30697, 30703 and 41820 of 2021 Copies of the applications have been included in the paper books for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

It is further submitted that Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Advocate has on 09.03.2021 filed an application for Intervention/Impleadment to implead the applicants as party respondents alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance. The applications is registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 36482 of 2021, Copy of the application has been included in the paper books for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

It is further submitted that Mrs. Liz Mathew, Advocate has on 17.03.2021 filed an application for Impleadment to implead the applicants as party respondents alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance. The applications is registered as Interlocutory Application Nos. 41144 of 2021Copy of the application has been included in the paper books for the kind perusal of Hon’ble Court).

It is further submitted that Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak, Mr. P. S. Sudheer, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Advocates have on 17.3.2021 and 18.03.2021 filed written submissions on behalf of Impleading Applicants, respondent Copy of the same have been included in the paper books for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

It is further submitted that Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Advocate has on 17.03.2021 filed Counter affidavit on behalf the proposed respondents. Copy of the counter affidavit has been included in paper books for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

It is submitted that Mr. Himinder Lal, Advocate has on 18.03.2021 filed an Application for Impleadment to implead the applicants as party respondents alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance. The application is registered as Interlocutory Application No. 41820 of 2021 in SLP 16721-22 of 2021(copy of the application is being circulated for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court).

It is submitted that Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker , Advocate has on 19.03.2021 filed an Application for Direction. The application is registered as Interlocutory Application No. 42543 of 2021 in SLP 16721-22 of 2021 Copy of the application is being circulated for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

It is submitted that Mr. Mohd. Saddique T.A. Advocate has on 19.03.2021 filed Applications for Impleadment to Implead the applicants as party Respondents and he has also filed Application for Directions. The application are registered as Interlocutory Application No. 42603 & 42704 of 2021 and I.A. Nos. 42696 & 42840 of 2021 respectively in SLP 16721-22 of 2021 Copies of the applications are being circulated for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

It is submitted that Mrs. Liz. Mathew, Advocate has on 20.03.2021 filed an Application for Impleadment to implead the applicants as party respondents alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance. The application is registered as Interlocutory Application No. 43183 of 2021, Copy of the application is being circulated for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

It is submitted that Mrs. Vandana Sehgal, Advocate has on 22.03.2021 filed Application for Impleadment to Implead the applicants as party Respondents and Application for Directions. The applications are registered as Interlocutory Application No. 43501 & 43510 of 2021 Copies of the applications are being circulated for kind perusal of Hon’ble Court.

It is submitted that Mr. Himinder Lal, Advocate has on 22.03.2021 filed an Application for Impleadment to implead the applicants as party respondents alongwith Vakalatnama/appearance. The application is registered as Interlocutory Application No. 43526 of 2021Copy of the application is being circulated for the kind perusal of Hon’ble Court.

It is lastly submitted that Ms. Shilpa Liza George, Advocate has on 8.4.2021 filed an application for Intervention to intervene. The application is registered as Interlocutory Application No. 50857/21 Copy of the application have been included in the paper books for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

The matters alongwith applications above-mentioned are listed before the Hon’ble Court with this office report. 

Dated this the 12th day of April, 2021

Sd

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Read More

EPS 95 PENSION CASES HEARING: The never- ending saga continues with the hearing again postponed to 13.04.21.

The never- ending saga continues with the hearing again postponed to 13.04.21.

You have seen the different  arguments, often ridiculous and silly,  put forth by EPFO, against our pleas, all these years.Now it has come up with the idea of paucity of funds as a final resort. And, Sir even if the SC orders in our favour the EPFO, finds another  lame excuse to avoid implementation this we all know and experienced time and again.

Sir, it really beats us why the EPFO has to resort to such blatant lies. One reasonable doubt and explanation could be that the entire fund of lakhs of rupees has been diverted and exhausted already.

Furthermore, hundreds of crores coming in, every month, by way of contributions is a lucrative source.

They are able to play this game just throwing a few bucks( less than 1000 rupees)  on our face taking safe shelter under the Act with multiple flaws.

It  thus, want to survive the threat of making good lakhs of crores, diverted so far.Our leader Sri.Prasada Reddy garu has furnished the financial data of EPFO that as on 31.03.2020; the total corpous of EPFO, is nearly 5.31 lakh crores interest earned is 39,042 crores.

While the amount of pension disbursed is 11,321 crores only.That is pension disbursed is less than 29% of the total Interest accrued balance of 71% amount goes into Corpus or into black hole???Can we find any other plausible reason for this adamant and constantly evasive attitude of EPFO, for all these years.

Kindly offer your opinion and remarks. Thanks

We are covered under a Welfare Scheme devised and implemented by Central Government. Contributions are collected from our employers and from us it has been made mandatory you have no liberty to be exempted. The pensioners of Central government do not contribute even a single rupee. And yet, they are paid huge pension (nearly 50- times more than us) plus DA revised upwards, every 6 months.

Why this discrimination ??

If the ruling class has real sympathy towards us, the aged and ailing, they can absorb our entire corpus amount of nearly 6- lakh crores into Consolidate Fund of India (from where the pension amount of Central government pensioners is drawn and paid) and pay us on par with the pensioners of Central government.There seems to be no big problem here....except *there is no corpous fund left must be totally dry...escaped into black hole.

Kindly enlighten us anything in contrary, of course, with valid reasons Thanks a lot.

 

Read More

EPS 95 Higher Pension: Hands to fight jointly at SC as it may be the last chance to fight on higher pension issue

EPS 95 PENSIONERS HIGHER PENSION CASE HEARING DATE

Respected all EPS 95 pensioners (petitioners at SC) and their Advocates/AORs pls join hands to fight jointly at SC as it may be the last chance to fight on higher pension issue.

Read More

Very Important Information for EPS 95 Pensioners related to evidences placed before Supreme Court of Information by EPFO & UOI

In this article a copy of the Critical financial analysis done by Mr  Ranjiv Paul w.r.t the additional documents filed by UOI in their SLP (Diary no. 11023 of 2019) in the SC on 16.1.2021 is sharing for EPS 95 Pensioners Information.

Also sharing a copy of the CWP (wherein he has made the Actuary M/S KA Pandit as well as SP, CBI, Shimla as one of the respondents), List of dates, Index, Annexures and the reply received from CBI with annexures in r/o a Writ filed in the HP High Court, Shimla by one of my EPS'95 pensioner friends - Post 1.9 2014 retiree on the basis of an RTI reply reg minutes of the Lok Adalat - Nidhi Aapke Nikat, EPFO, Shimla shared by me. Please go through the WPC 4218 of 2020 as good efforts have been made by the petitioners in exposing the EPFO.

Union of India (herein after called UOI) and Employees Provident Fund organization (herein after called EPFO) are manipulating data, misleading various courts of laws in India, hiding vital information and using the office of Actuary as a tool to defeat the implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India order dated 04.10.2016 in SLP (c) No. 33032-33033/2015 and Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in W.P.( C ) No. 13120 of 2015.

Click Complete Report of Critical Financial Analysis

 

Read More

Supreme Court of India: Supreme Court bar Association called for an emergent meeting on 6th March 2021on SOP Issued by Registry of Supreme Court of India

EPS 95 PENSIONERS HIGHER PENSION HEARING UPDATE FIND BELOW

The executive committee of the Supreme Court bar Association called for an emergent meeting on 6th March 2021 pursuant to the Standard Operating Procedure dated 5th March 2021, for hybrid physical hearing before Honorable Supreme Court issued by the registry of Supreme Court of India. In the executive committee it was an unanimously resolved that Anna University and decided not to accept the Standard Operating Procedure as the same was prepared without taking into confidence the bar, despite the assurance given to the executive committee by honorable the Chief Justice of India in the meeting held on 1st March 2021.

It was unanimously agreed that Standard Operating Procedure is an unilaterally trusted upon the member of the Bar despite the fact that the bar is an equal stakeholder in the dispensation of the justice delivery system. The executive committee for the unanimously resolved and decided to challenge the aforesaid Standard Operating Procedure for hybrid physical hearing by way of filling a write petition before The Honorable Supreme Court of India.

It was further unanimously agreed that the Bar want to full physical hearing and is agreeable for hybrid hearing before The Honorable Supreme Court only as an interim measures provided hybrid hearing is for all Courts on all working days including permitting mentioning of the matter.

Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad,

Hony. Secretary

Read More