EPS 95 Higher Pension Cases 24 August Supreme Court Order: See Complete Order Delivered by Supreme Court, Supreme Court Refers EPFO Appeals to 3-Judge Bench

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION/
INHERENT JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.8658-8659 OF 2019
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Etc. …. Appellant(s)
Versus
Sunil Kumar B. & Etc. ….. Respondent(s)
WITH

W.P. (C) No.767/2021; SLP (C) No.3289/2021; CONMT. PET.(C) Nos.1917-1918/2018 IN C.A. Nos.10013-10014/2016; W.P. (C) No.406/2018; W.P. (C) No.368/2018; W.P. (C) No.393/2018; W.P. (C) No.395/2018; W.P. (C) No.374/2018; W.P. (C) No.372/2018; W.P. (C) No.385/2018; W.P. (C) No.360/2018; W.P. (C) No.1134/2018; W.P. (C) No.390/2019; W.P. (C) No.875/2019; W.P. (C) No.349/2019; W.P. (C) No.466/2019; W.P. (C) No.352/2019, SLP (C) Nos.16721-16722/2019, W.P. (C) NO.512/2019, W.P. (C) NO.511/2019, W.P.(C) NO.500/2019, CONTMT.PET (C) NOs. 619-620/2019 IN C.A. NOs.10013-10014/2016, W.P.(C) NO.601/2019, W.P.(C) No.1312/2019, W.P.(C) No.832/2019, SLP(C) NO.2465/2021, SLP(C)NO.3287/2021, DIARY NO.46219/2019, W.P.(C) No.1218/2020, SLP(C)NO.1366/2021, W.P.(C) No.1459/2020, W.P.(C) No.1332/2020, SLP(C) NO.3290/2021, W.P.(C) No.86/2021, SLP(C) NO.1738/2021, SLP(C) No.1701/2021, W.P.(C) No.414/2021, W.P.(C) No.477/2021, SLP(C) NO.8547/2021, W.P.(C) No.233/2018, W.P.(C) No.69/2018, W.P.(C) No.141/2018, W.P.(C) No.118/2018, W.P.(C) No.250/2018, W.P.(C) No.380/2018, W.P.(C) No.371/2018, W.P.(C) No.367/2018, W.P.(C) No.369/2018, W.P.(C) No.411/2018, W.P.(C) No.466/2018, W.P.(C) No.804/2018, W.P.(C) No.594/2018, W.P.(C) No.884/2018, W.P.(C) No.778/2018, W.P.(C) No.874/2018, W.P.(C) No.1149/2018, W.P.(C) No.1167/2018, W.P.(C) No.1430/2018, W.P.(C) No.1433/2018, W.P.(C) No.1428/2018, W.P.(C) No.269/2019 and W.P.(C) No.327/2019,

ORDER

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD SUPREME COURT ORDER COPY DATED 24 AUGUST 2021

1. By Order dated 25.02.2021 these matters were broadly divided in four categories with lead matters being:-

“(i) SLP (C) No(s). 8658-8659/2019, 16721-16722/2019 [arising from the judgment dated 12.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Kerala];

(ii) SLP(C) Diary No(s). 46219/2019 [arising from the judgment dated 22.5.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi] along with connected matter being SLP(C) No. 1366/2021 [arising from the judgment dated 16.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi];

(iii) SLP(C) No. 2465/2021 [arising from judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur]; and

(iv) CONMT. PET.(C) No. 1917-1918/2018 in C.A. No. 10013- 10014/2016 [seeking implementation of the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by this Court in C.A.No.10013/201 :R.C. Gupta & Ors. Etc. etc. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors. Etc.1] …...”

2. SLP (C) Nos.8658 – 59 of 2019 challenging the Judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition (C) Nos.602/2015 and 13120/2015 were initially dismissed by this Court on 01.04.2019.

Thereafter, SLP (C) Nos. 16721-22/2019 at the instance of Union of India challenging the very same judgment dated 12.10.2018 came up before this Court on 12.07.2019. While condoning the delay in preferring said SLPs, this Court directed that said SLPs be listed along with Review Petition (C) Nos.1430-31/2019 (which had since then been preferred against the order dated 01.04.2019 in SLP(C) Nos.8658-59/2019) in open Court.

3. When both sets of matters were listed before this Court on 29.01.2021, the submissions on behalf of the petitioners were noted as under:-

“Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in said Review Petitions invited our attention to the order dated 21.12.2020 passed by another Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala by which the correctness of the earlier decision dated 12.10.2018 was doubted and the matter was referred to Full Bench of the High Court.

Mr. Sundaram, also invited our attention to the decision of this Court in M/s Pawan Hans Ltd. & Ors. vs. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana & Ors [2020(2)SCALE 1942] and specially paragraph 6.6 of the decision.

It was submitted that as a result of the directions issued by the High Court in its order dated 12.10.2018, benefit would get conferred upon employees retrospectively which, in turn, would create great imbalance.”

4. Thereafter, this Court recalled the order dismissing SLP (C) Nos.8658-8659 of 2019 and the entire bunch of matters was directed to be listed for disposal.

5. It may be noted here that the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in its order dated 12.10.2018 had relied upon the decision of two Judges of this Court in R.C. Gupta1 . Said decision had set aside the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in LPA Nos.411-12 of 2012 which had inter alia accepted the submission that under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme there was a cut-off date. Paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 of the decision in R.C. Gupta1  were as under:-

“7. Reading the proviso, we find that the reference to the date of commencement of the Scheme or the date on which the salary exceeds the ceiling limit are dates from which the option exercised are to be reckoned with for calculation of pensionable salary. The said dates are not cut-off dates to determine the eligibility of the employer-employee to indicate their option under the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. A somewhat similar view that has been taken by this Court in a matter coming from the Kerala High Court3, wherein Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7074 of 2014 filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was rejected by this Court by order dated 31-3-20164. A beneficial scheme, in our considered view, ought not to be allowed to be defeated by reference to a cut-off date, particularly, in a situation where (as in the present case) the employer had deposited 12% of the actual salary and not 12% of the ceiling limit of Rs 5000 or Rs 6500 per month, as the case may be.

9. We do not see how exercise of option under Para 26 of the Provident Fund Scheme can be construed to estop the employees from exercising a similar option under Para 11(3). If both the employer and the employee opt for deposit against the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, exercise of option under Para 26 of the Provident Scheme is inevitable. Exercise of the option under Para 26(6) is a necessary precursor to the exercise of option under Clause 11(3). Exercise of such option, therefore, would not foreclose the exercise of a further option under Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme unless the circumstances warranting such foreclosure are clearly indicated.

10. The above apart in a situation where the deposit of the employer’s share at 12% has been on the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, we do not see how the Provident Fund Commissioner could have been aggrieved to file the LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court. All thatthe Provident Fund Commissioner is required to do in the case is an adjustment of accounts which in turn would have benefited some of the employees. At best what the Provident Commissioner could do and which we permit him to do under the present order is to seek a return of all such amounts that the employees concerned may have taken or withdrawn from their provident fund account before granting them the benefit of the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Once such a return is made in whichever cases such return is due, consequential benefits in terms of this order will be granted to the said employees.”

6. Relying on the decision in R.C. Gupta1, the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala made following observations in the judgment which is under challenge in matters of the first category: -

“32. The Apex Court has thus found the insistence on a date for exercise of the joint option to be without any justification. In other words, the proviso to paragraph 11 of the Pension Scheme does not stipulate a cut off date at all. Any such stipulation of a cut-off date for conferring benefits under the Pension Scheme would have the effect of classifying the employees into persons who have retired before or after the said date”

6.1 The Division Bench of the High Court then found that the effect of the amendment to the Pension Scheme created following classes of pensioners on the basis of the date namely 01.09.2014: -

• “(i) employees who have exercised option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme and continuing in service as on 01.09.2014;

• (ii) employees who have not exercised their option under the proviso to paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme, and continuing in service as on 01.09.2014;

• (iii) employees who have retired prior to 01.09.2014 without exercising an option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 Scheme.

• (iv) employees who have retired prior to 01.09.2014 after exercising the option under paragraph 1193) of 1995 Scheme.”

6.2 The amendments to the Pension Scheme were therefore found to be arbitrary and the Writ Petitions were allowed with following directions: -

• “(i) The Employee’s Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 brought into force by Notification No.GSR. 609€ dated 22.08.2014 evidenced by Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.13120 of 2015 is set aside;
• (ii) All consequential orders and proceedings issued by the Provident Fund authorities/respondents on the basis of the impugned amendments shall also stand set aside.
• (iii) The various proceedings issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization declining to grant opportunities to the petitioners to exercise a joint option along with other employees to remit contributions to the Employees Pension Scheme on the basis of the actual salaries drawn by them are set aside.
• (iv) The employees shall be entitled to exercise the option stipulated by paragraph 26 of the EPF Scheme without being restricted in doing so by the insistence on a date.”

7. Challenging the view taken by the High Court Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Advocate inter alia relied upon the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Krishena Kumar Vs. Union of India.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of said decision disclose that the petitioners in SLP (C) No.8461 of 1986 and in WP No.1165 of 1989 had retired with Provident Fund benefits and their claims to switch to pension scheme after retirement having been rejected, specific challenge was raised. In support of such challenge, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara and Others vs. Union of India. The challenge was rejected by the Constitution Bench with following observations: -

“32. In Nakara it was never held that both the pension retirees and the PF retirees formed a homogeneous class and that any further classification among them would be violative of Article 14. On the other hand the court clearly observed that it was not dealing with the problem of a “fund”. The Railway Contributory Provident Fund is by definition a fund. Besides, the government’s obligation towards an employee under CPF Scheme to give the matching contribution begins as soon as his account is opened and ends with his retirement when his rights qua the government in respect of the Provident Fund is finally crystallized and thereafter no statutory obligation continues. Whether there still remained a moral obligation is a different matter. On the other hand under the Pension Scheme the government’s obligation does not begin until the employee retires when only it begins and it continues till the death of the employee. Thus, on the retirement of an employee government’s legal obligation under the Provident Fund account ends while under the Pension Scheme it begins. The rules governing the Provident Fund and its contribution are entirely different from the rules governing pension. It would not, therefore, be reasonable to argue that what is applicable to the pension retirees must also equally be applicable to PF retirees. This being the

legal position the rights of each individual PF retiree finally crystallized on his retirement whereafter no continuing obligation remained while, on the other hand, as regard Pension retirees, the obligation continued till their death.

The continuing obligation of the State in respect of pension retirees is adversely affected by fall in rupee value and rising prices which, considering the corpus already received by the PF retirees they would not be so adversely affected ipso facto. It cannot, therefore, be said that it was the ratio decided in Nakara that the State’s obligation towards its PF retirees must be the same as that towards the pension retirees. An imaginary definition of obligation to include all the government retirees in a class was not decided and could not form the basis for any classification for the purpose of this case. Nakara cannot, therefore, be an authority for this case.”

8. Mr. Sundaram relied upon the observations that Pension Retirees and Provident Fund Retirees did not form a homogeneous class and that the Rules governing the Provident Fund Scheme were entirely different from the Rules governing Pension Scheme.

After inviting our attention to the various provisions of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, it was submitted that the difference between the Provident Fund Scheme on the one hand and the Pension Scheme on the other was well recognized. Under the former scheme, the contributions made by the employer and the employees during the employment of the employee would be made over to the employee along with interest accrued thereon at the time of his retirement. Thus, the obligation on the part of the operators of the Provident Fund Scheme would come to an end, after the retirement of the employee; whereas the obligation under the Pension Scheme would begin when the employee retired. Under the former scheme, the liability was only to pay interest on the amount deposited and to make over the entire amount at the time of his retirement. On the contrary, in the latter scheme, it would be for the operators of the Pension Scheme to invest amount deposited in such a way that after the retirement of the concerned employee the invested amount would keep on giving sufficient returns so that the pension would be paid to the concerned employee not only during his life time but even to his family members after his death. If the option under paragraph 11(3) of the Scheme, was to be afforded well after the cutoff date, it would create great imbalance and would amount to crosssubsidization by those who were regularly contributing to the Pension Scheme in favour of those who come at a later point in time and walk away with all the advantages. 

It was submitted that the emphasis on investment of the amount in both the funds would qualitatively be of different dimension. The difference between two schemes which was fulcrum of the decision in Krishena Kumar was not so noted in the subsequent decision in R.C. Gupta1. In his submission it would not be a mere adjustment of amount to transfer from one fund to another as stated in R.C. Gupta1 and that the decision in R.C. Gupta was required to be re-visited. 9. These, and the other submissions touching upon the applicability of the principle laid down in the decision in R.C. Gupta go to the very root of the matter. Sitting in a Bench of two Judges it would not be appropriate for us to deal with said submissions. The logical course would be to refer all these matters to a Bench of at least three Judges so that appropriate decision can be arrived at.

10. The principal questions that arise for consideration are whether there would be a cut-off date under paragraph 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme and whether the decision in R.C. Gupta1 would be the governing principle on the basis of which all these matters must be disposed of.

11. The Registry is, therefore, directed to place these matters before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for requisite directions so that these matters can be placed before a larger Bench.

….…………………………………..J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
….…………………………………..J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
New Delhi,
August 24, 2021

 

Read More

EPS 95 SUPREME COURT GOOD NEWS: EPS 95 CASES HEARING 12.08.2021 UPDATE | SUPREME COURT ORDER DT. 12.08.2021

ITEM NO.11     Court 2 (Video Conferencing)          SECTION XI-A

SUPREME  COURT  OF  INDIA

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)  No(s).  8658-8659/2019

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  12-10-2018 in WPC No. 602/2015 12-10-2018 in WPC No. 13120/2015 passed by the High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam)

THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION & ANR.   Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
SUNIL KUMAR B & ORS.                               Respondent(s)

WITH
W.P.(C) No. 233/2018 (X)
 W.P.(C) No. 69/2018 (X)
(IA No. 14965/2018 - EX-PARTE STAY)
 W.P.(C) No. 141/2018 (X)
(IA No. 26357/2018 - EX-PARTE STAY

To see complete list of connected maters Download Complete Order below

Click Here to Download Complete Order Copy in pdf

Date : 12-08-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI

For Parties:    Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate
                Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, AOR
                Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR
                Mr. Pranesh, AOR

Click Here to Download Complete Order Copy in pdf

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             ORDER
List on  17.08.2021 as first item on Board.
(INDU MARWAH)                                   (BEENA JOLLY)
COURT MASTER (SH)

 

Read More

EPS 95 NAC NEWS: धारकों के लिए खुशखबरी: मा.प्रधानमंत्री जी ने राष्ट्रीय संघर्ष समिति (NAC) के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष को न्यूनतम पेंशन 7500+DA बढ़ोतरी का ठोस आश्वासन दिया NAC के प्रतिनिधि मंडल के साथ मा. प्रधानमंत्री जी के साथ बैठक सम्पन्न

कमांडर अशोक राऊत राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष राष्ट्रीय संघर्ष समिति द्वारा दी  जानकारी के नुसार दिनांक 5 अगस्त 2021 को श्रीमती हेमामालिनी जी की अगुवाई में  EPS 95  पेंशनर्स के लिये राष्ट्रीय स्तर पर संघर्ष कर रहे संगठन NAC  के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष कमांडर अशोक राऊत ने NAC के प्रतिनिधि मंडल के साथ मा. प्रधानमंत्री जी महोदय से प्रधानमंत्री कार्यालय में मुलाकात की और पेंशनर्स की 4 सूत्रीय मांगो के संदर्भ में ज्ञापन सौपा है।

EPS 95 पेंशनर्स की 4 सूत्रीय मांगे:-

1.मिनिमम पेंशन रु.7500+ मंहगाई भत्ता के साथ ही

2.ईपीएफओ के पत्र दिनांक 23.03.2017 अनुसार वास्तविक वेतन पर उच्च पेंशन के विकल्प की सुविधा। 

3. मेडिकल सुविधा और ,

4. Non EPS 95 रिटायर्ड  कर्मचारियों का योजना में समावेश कर रू. 5000 मासिक पेंशन आदि मुख्य मांगों को संसद के इसी मानसून सत्र में मंजूर करें।

कमांडर अशोक राऊत ने  EPS 95 पेंशनर्स की दयनीय व मरणासन्न अवस्था का जिक्र करते हुए, पेंशनर्स की बढ़ती हुई मृत्यु दर पर चिंता दर्शाते हुए पेंशनर्स की मांगो को मंजूर कर 15 अगस्त 2021 को घोषणा करने की प्रार्थना मा. प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदीजी से की है, जिससे NAC के मुख्यालय बुलढाणा, महाराष्ट्र में पिछले 956 दिनों से जारी क्रमिक अनशन भी समाप्त हो सके। 

साथ ही श्रीमती हेमा मालिनी जी ने भी मा. प्रधानमंत्री जी के समक्ष  राष्ट्रीय संघर्ष समिति की मांगों का  समर्थन करते हुए EPS 95 पेंशनर्स का पक्ष रखा और EPS 95 पेंशनर्स की मांगों को मंजूर करने हेतु निवेदन किया है।

मा.प्रधानमंत्री जी ने बताया कि "इस विषय पर NAC के प्रतिनिधि मंडल से हम पहले भी चर्चा कर चुके है। समस्यायों के समाधान की प्रक्रिया में थोड़ा समय लगता है लेकिन आप लोग व्यथित न हो, हम जरूर इस समस्या का समाधान करेंगे" ऐसा कहते हुए प्रधानमंत्री के कार्यालय के राज्यमंत्री डाक्टर जीतेंद्र सिंह को निर्देशित किया कि वह इस विषय पर विस्तार पूर्वक प्रतिनिधि मंडल से चर्चा करें।

प्रधानमंत्री जी के निर्देशानुसार डाक्टर जीतेंद्र सिंह जी ने श्रीमती हेमा मालिनी जी की उपस्थिति में प्रतिनिधि मंडल के तर्क और तथ्य सुनें। इसके बाद वित्त मंत्री महोदया श्रीमती निर्मला सीथारमन जी से प्रतिनिधि मंडल की बैठक करवाई।

डाक्टर जीतेंद्र सिंह जी और श्रीमती हेमा मालिनी जी की उपस्थिति में NAC राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष ने वित्त मंत्री महोदया से निवेदन किया कि EPS 95 पेंशनर्स इतनी कम पेंशन राशि में कैसे गुजारा करते होंगे? इसका जिक्र करते हुए कहा कि हमारी चार सूत्रीय मांगों को शीघ्र पूर्ण किया जाए। EPFO के पास पर्याप्त मात्रा में फंड है लेकिन फिर भी जिस प्रकार से अन्य पेंशन योजनाओं में सरकार ने अपना अंशदान बढ़ाया है उसी प्रकार से EPS 95 पेंशन योजना में सरकार अपना अंशदान बढ़ाए और देश के वृद्ध  EPS 95 पेंशनर्स को सम्मान देते हुए सुरक्षित रखे।

वित्त मंत्री महोदया ने प्रतिनिधि मंडल की बात बहुत ही ध्यान से सुनी। NAC अध्यक्ष ने सभी को धन्यवाद देते हुए एक बार फिर शीघ्र निर्णय लेने के लिए निवेदन किया। NAC के प्रतिनिधि मंडल में संगठन के राष्ट्रीय महासचिव श्री वीरेन्द्र सिंह राजावत व राष्ट्रीय मुख्य सलाहकार श्री डॉ. पी एन पाटिल उपस्थित रहे।

National Agitation Committee:-
प्रेस नोट
नई दिल्ली 05.08.2021
मा.प्रधानमंत्री जी ने जगाया वृद्ध  EPS 95 पेंशनर्स के मन में विश्वास।
दिया राष्ट्रीय संघर्ष समिति (NAC) के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष को ठोस आश्वासन
श्रीमती हेमामालिनी जी, सांसद मथुरा की अगुवाई में हुई मुलाकात व चर्चा।

Read More

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

EPS 95 MINIMUM PENSION HIKE 7500+DA News: EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों की पेंशन 7500 बढ़ोतरी के लिए श्रम मंत्री भूपेंद्र यादवजी को लिखा पत्र

जैसा कि सभी इपीएस 95 पेंशनधारकों को अवगत है कि राष्ट्रीय संघर्ष समिति द्वारा eps-95 पेंशनधारकों की न्यूनतम पेंशन बढ़ोतरी 7500 समेत जो अन्य चार सूत्रीय मांगे हैं तो उन मांगों के लिए लगातार प्रयास किया जा रहा है। इन्हीं प्रयासों के मद्देनजर eps-95 राष्ट्रीय संघर्ष समिति द्वारा देशभर में कई आंदोलन किए गए कई मंत्रियों महोदय के साथ मुलाकात की गई पर अभी तक eps-95 पेंशनधारकों की पेंशन बढ़ोतरी का नाम नहीं लिया जा रहा है।

ऐसे में राष्ट्रीय संघर्ष समिति द्वारा नव निर्वाचित श्रम मंत्री भूपेंद्र यादवजी को एक पत्र eps-95 पेंशनधारकों की पेंशन बढ़ोतरी के लिए माननीय कमांडर अशोक राउतजी, राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष, राष्ट्रीय संघर्ष समिति द्वारा 13 जुलाई को भेजा गया है। जिसमें उन्होंने eps-95 पेंशनधारकों की न्यूनतम पेंशन बढ़ोतरी की जो मांगे हैं और इससे पहले माननीय प्रधानमंत्री जी के साथ जो बैठक 4 मार्च 2020 को संपन्न हुई थी तो उसका जिक्र करते हुए उसे जल्द से जल्द हर करने के लिए कहा गया है।

माननीय कमांडर अशोक राउतजी ने इस पत्र में माननीय श्रम मंत्री जी को सबसे पहले श्रम मंत्री पद पर विराजमान होने के लिए समस्त NAC सदस्य और 67 लाख ईपीएस 95 पेंशनधारकों की ओर से बधाई दी है। उसके बाद पिछले श्रम मंत्री जी की तरफ से दिए गये आश्वासन के बारे में बताया गया है। जिसमे पेंशन बढ़ोतरी का आश्वासन दिया गया पर अभी तक eps-95 पेंशनधारकों की पेंशन बढ़ोतरी नहीं हुई है। साथ ही पिछले श्रम मंत्री जी की तरफ द्वारा दिए गए आश्वासन के मद्देनजर eps-95 राष्ट्रीय संघर्ष समिति द्वारा देशभर में चलाए गए आंदोलनो को वापस ले लिया गया केवल बुलढाणा महाराष्ट्र में eps-95 राष्ट्रीय संघर्ष समिति की तरफ से पिछले 933 दिनों से क्रमिक अनशन चलाया जा रहा है।

महोदय, हमने अपने देश में कोविड-19 की स्थिति को देखते हुए भारत के बुजुर्ग नागरिक होने के नाते अपना संयम और धैर्य दिखाया है। लेकिन सदस्यों का आपके मंत्रालय पर से विश्वास उठ गया है, क्योंकि पिछले श्रम मंत्री जी की तरफ द्वारा दिया गया सरकारी वादा मंत्रालय के अधिकारियों द्वारा कूड़ेदान में फेंक दिया गया है।

Read More

EPS 95 PENSION 7500+DA LATEST NEWS: EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों को मा. सांसद हेमा मालिनी जी ने दिलाया विश्वास और कहा कि वह उनके साथ है | EPS 95 7500+DA

NAC के EPS 95 पेंशनर्स बचाओ राष्ट्र व्यापी अभियान अंतर्गत दिनांक 30.06.2021 को मा. सांसद श्रीमती हेमा मालिनी जी ने फिर से ईपीएस 95 पेंशनधारको को भरोसा दिलाया है की वह ईपीएस 95 पेंशनधारको की मांगो को मंजूर करवाने हेतु वचनबद्ध है। NAC के राष्ट्रीय उपाध्यक्ष श्री आशाराम शर्मा ने की फिर से मा.सांसद श्रीमती हेमा मालिनी जी से मुलाकात की और उन्हें ईपीएस 95 पेंशन धारको की समस्याओ से अवगत करवाया । मा. सांसद श्रीमती हेमा मालिनी जी ने फिर दिलाया EPS 95 पेन्शनर्स को विश्वास। NAC के राष्ट्रीय उपाध्यक्ष श्री आशाराम शर्मा ने मा.सांसद श्रीमती हेमा मालिनी जी से मुलाकात की।

मा. कमांडर अशोक राऊत, राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष के मार्गदर्शन में NAC संगठन के राष्ट्रीय उपाध्यक्ष श्री आशाराम शर्मा के नेतृत्व में संगठन की केंद्रीय टीम ने NAC संगठन की शुभ चिंतक मा. हेमा मालिनी जी से की दिनांक 30 जून 2021 को मुलाकात की। मा. हेमामालिनी जी ने EPS पेंशनधारकों से साधा सीधा संवाद और जानी EPS पेंशनधारकों की व्यथा, और EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों के मन में विश्वास जगाया। साथ ही दी उनके द्वारा किए गये प्रयत्नों की जानकारी। मा. सांसद महोदया ने आगे कहा कि आप सभी धैर्य रखे, मैं आप की मांगों के समर्थन में आपके साथ हूं।

इस संदर्भ में मा. श्रीमती हेमा मालिनी जी ने बताया "कि पेंशनर्स की मांगों के समर्थन में मेरा पूरा प्रयास जारी है, संबंधित महानुभावों से मेरी बातचीत भी जारी है, वह पेंशनर्स के साथ है व पेंशनर्स की मांगों को पूर्ण करवाने हेतु वचनबद्ध भी है" साथ ही मा. श्रीमती हेमा मालिनी जी ने संगठन को थोड़ा सा और धैर्य रखने की सलाह दी।

ज्ञातव्य हो कि दिनांक 4 मार्च 2020 को प्रधानमंत्री जी द्वारा स्वयं हेमा जी की उपस्थिति में NAC के प्रतिनिधियों को आश्वासन भी दिया गया था और संबंधित मंत्री महोदय को दिशा निर्देश भी दिए गए थे तभी से यह वृद्ध पेंशन धारक आशा भरी नज़रों से प्रधानमंत्री जी की ओर देख रहे है।

यह भी ज्ञातव्य हो कि NAC संगठन द्वारा सभी आंदोलन वापिस ले लिए गए है लेकिन NAC के मुख्यालय बुलढाणा (महाराष्ट्र) में जिलाधिकारी कार्यालय के सामने क्रमिक अनशन अखंडित जारी है  और इस अनशन को 925 दिनों से ज्यादा दिन हो चुके है।

 

Read More

EPS 95 Pensioners Higher Pension Case hearing Latest July Update: Higher Pension cases Hearing May Done in July once Supreme Court Start Funtioning

All EPS 95 Pensioner have been waiting for Hon'ble Supreme Court to start after vacation on 1st July 2021. We are with a hope that the Apex Court under present CJI Sri.N. V. Ramana ji will settle our EPF full higher pension case favourably in our favour. Everything left to GOD only. Whether it is right or not many of my colleagues comments that though Hon'ble SC delivers favorably it will be applicable to those who have petitioned in court but not for all.

Here what I want to say owing to many personal difficulties many might not have filed writ in the court. That means they have to forget. We have no hopes with present Govt. Which is adamant may not realise our difficulties and not helped even in corona PANDEMIC period as extended to others.

The Govt is playing in the court with fake liability of required funds to the tune of 15 lakhs crores. It is quiet wrong. Our strength is also reducing due to many are reaching GOD. As per rough statics of actual strength of existing EPF pensioners are as follows. Right from the release of SC verdict date 4-10-2016 till now more than 2.5 lakhs have left the world.

That means 67 - 2.5 = 64.5 lakhs

Actually all may not claim full higher pension either less than sealing pay and may not contribute difference of contributions with interest. They all come up to 40%. that means roughly 27 lakhs.

Remaining are 64.5 - 27.0 = 37.5 lakhs only.

If the above rough estimate is correct the net required funds by the Govt may be hardly 5 lakhs crores including arrears.Despite difference of contributions paid by pensioners. So we hope for positive verdict for all.

By GOD's Grace due to the elections in Punjab Delhi and UP if Modi Govt shows sympathy for minimum pension of Rs.7500.00 with DA as demanded by NAC is sanctioned all of us will be benefitted as those who are drawing higher pension prior to the year 2005 are also anticipating minimum pension with DA.

All EPS 95 Pensioner hope positively.

Read More

Good News For Pensioners: सरकार ने पारिवारिक पेंशन पाने की आवेदन प्रक्रिया को बनाया सरल अब तुरंत मिलेगी पेंशन

घातक कोविड -19 महामारी को देखते हुए, केंद्र सरकार ने केंद्र सरकार के कर्मचारियों के लिए पारिवारिक पेंशन नियमों को सरल बनाया है। केंद्रीय मंत्री डॉ. जितेंद्र सिंह ने पेंशन एवं पेंशनभोगी कल्याण विभाग (DoP&PW) द्वारा बनाए गए नियमों में बदलाव की घोषणा करते हुए कहा कि बदले हुए नियम में परिवार पेंशन और मृत्यु प्रमाण पत्र के लिए दावा प्राप्त होने पर तुरंत अनंतिम पारिवारिक पेंशन स्वीकृत की जाएगी। अन्य औपचारिकताओं या प्रक्रियात्मक आवश्यकताओं के पूरा होने की प्रतीक्षा किए बिना पात्र परिवार के सदस्य।

पेंशन एवं पेंशनभोगी कल्याण विभाग (DoP&PW) ने बैंकों से अनुरोध किया है कि वे "पारिवारिक पेंशन के दावेदारों से केवल न्यूनतम आवश्यक विवरण मांगें और यह सुनिश्चित करें कि पेंशन चाहने वालों को परेशान न किया जाए।

"आपसे अनुरोध है कि सीपीपीसी और आपके बैंक की पेंशन भुगतान करने वाली शाखाओं को परिवार पेंशन के दावेदारों से केवल न्यूनतम आवश्यक विवरण / दस्तावेज प्राप्त करने के लिए उपयुक्त निर्देश जारी करें, और यह सुनिश्चित करने के लिए कि वे नहीं हैं अनावश्यक विवरण और दस्तावेजों की मांग करके किसी भी उत्पीड़न के अधीन, ”डीओपीपीडब्ल्यू ने कहा।

पत्र के अनुसार, बैंक द्वारा पारिवारिक पेंशन शुरू करने के लिए आवेदक के अलावा परिवार के सदस्यों का विवरण प्रासंगिक नहीं है। इसलिए, बैंकों को किसी भी परिस्थिति में आवेदक से इस तरह का विवरण नहीं मांगना चाहिए।

पत्र में कहा गया है, "आवेदक के अलावा परिवार के सदस्यों का विवरण बैंक द्वारा पारिवारिक पेंशन शुरू करने के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं है और इसलिए किसी भी परिस्थिति में आवेदक से इसकी मांग नहीं की जानी चाहिए।"

पारिवारिक पेंशन का दावा करने के लिए आवश्यक दस्तावेज (Documents required for claiming family pension)

उन मामलों में जहां मृतक पेंशनभोगी और पति या पत्नी का संयुक्त खाता है:

• परिवार पेंशन की शुरुआत के लिए एक साधारण पत्र या आवेदन पत्र।
• मृत पेंशनभोगी का मृत्यु प्रमाण पत्र।
• पेंशनभोगी को दिए गए पीपीओ की प्रति यदि कोई हो।
• आवेदक की आयु या जन्म तिथि का प्रमाण।
• पारिवारिक पेंशन शुरू करने के लिए, पति/पत्नी/परिवार के सदस्य को बैंक में फॉर्म 14 जमा करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है।

उन मामलों में जहां पति या पत्नी का मृतक पेंशनभोगी के साथ संयुक्त खाता (Joint Account) नहीं है :

• फॉर्म 14 आवेदन पर दो गवाहों के हस्ताक्षर आवश्यक हैं।
• मृत पेंशनभोगी का मृत्यु प्रमाण पत्र।
• पेंशनभोगी को दिए गए पीपीओ की प्रति यदि कोई हो।
• आवेदक की आयु या जन्म तिथि का प्रमाण।
• यह आवश्यक नहीं है कि फॉर्म 14 को राजपत्रित अधिकारी आदि द्वारा प्रमाणित किया जाए। पीपीओ में दी गई जानकारी और इसके अपने "अपने ग्राहक को जानें" मानकों के आधार पर, जारीकर्ता बैंक पति/पत्नी/परिवार के सदस्य का निर्धारण करेगा।

ऐसे मामलों में जहां पेंशनभोगी और पति या पत्नी की मृत्यु होने पर, परिवार पेंशन को परिवार के किसी अन्य सदस्य को हस्तांतरित करना होता है;

• यदि परिवार के किसी अन्य सदस्य को पारिवारिक पेंशन के लिए पीपीओ में सह-प्राधिकृत किया गया है, तो ऊपर दिए गए प्रोटोकॉल को ही अपनाया जाना चाहिए।
• यदि परिवार के अन्य सदस्य का नाम पीपीओ पर नहीं है, तो उसे उस कार्यालय में नया पीपीओ प्राप्त करने का निर्देश दिया जा सकता है जहां सरकारी कर्मचारी/पेंशनभोगी पिछली बार कार्यरत था।

Read More

EPS 95 Higher Pension Update: Implementation of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the EPFO to pay revised higher pension to the retired EPS 95 pensioners based on the actual salaries along with the enhancement of Minimum pension to Rs 7500+DA along with medical reimbursement as requested Regarding.

With Reference to our Representations to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Sri N V Ramana Garu Dated 1. 6 th June 2021, 2. 12 th June 2021, 3. 23 rd June 2021, 4. 26 th June 2021

Kind attention of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India Sri N V Garu is invited to the subject and references cited above

Sir we have requested the Hon'ble Chief Justice kindly look into into the matter and save the lives of the retired pensioners Duly disposing the pending review petitions filed by Central Government and EPFO against the Supreme Court's judgement.

Sir we are very much pained to let the Hon'ble Chief Justice to know that around 25 lakh rtd pensioners out of 60 lakh have lost their lives out of starvation unable to get on with the meagre pension of rs ranging from rs 300/- to 1000/- per month all over the country.

The bereaved family members of the respective Demised pensioners find no way except to forcibly Die or commit suicides with out food, in case of further delay in the disposal of the Review petitions.

Recently in a case the hon'ble supreme court cautioned the state government of AP that if a citizen dies due to negligent attitude of the government, the government shall pay rupees ONE Crore to the family members.

We submit the hon'ble Chief Justice that around 25 lakh EPS 95 retired pensioners died due to willful negligent attitude of the hon'ble Prime Minister Government of India, without giving scope to implement the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Review petitions, 1. on behalf of Central Government and second Review petition from EPFO and seeking continuous adjournments years together. Hence the Prime minister of India Sri Narendra Modi garu is solely responsible for the deaths and is liable to pay One Crore Rupees to each bereaved family of the Demised pensioners and request the Hon'ble Supreme court to order for the payment of Compensation to the extent of rs 1 Crore to the bereaved families.

We further request you sir kindly see the Judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is implemented immediately duly Disposing off the review petitions and orders  issued for the minimum wages of rs 750+DA+Medical reimbursement to the retired pensioners with out allowing further adjournments expected  to be sought by the Govt and EPFO

With regards
Yours faithfully
A V Ramana rtd DMO APCO President Weavers Welfare Council AP and Telangana states

(one among the 65 lakh retired employees)

Copy Submitted to the hon'ble Prime Minister Government of India to pay Rupees One Crore to each bereaved family members of the Retired pensioners who died during the last one Decade following the failure of the Central Government to settle the issue of pension.

 

Read More

EPS 95 Higher Pension Cases Hearing Update: Very Important Information for 67 Lakh EPS 95 Pensioners Regarding Higher Pension Cases Hearing

Very Important Information for 67 Lakh EPS 95 Pensioners Regarding Higher Pension Cases Hearing

Dear friends ,

We are getting number of phone calls from our pensioner friends regularly to know d status of higher pension matter. so we would once again wish to  infom that d matter is now pending in Supreme Court for hearing n order. court will open on 1st july. thereafter our dealing advocates will take steps for early hearing of our cases.

In d mean time our Assn has send a petition to CJI for early hearing of our cases n our friends of Telengana state has also met CJI at Hydrabad discussed with him n has given a representation for early hearing of our cases. we are also in regular touch with our NCR leaders at Delhi about d case matter n they are taking all steps. we are hopeful that d matter will be taken up in july for hearing.

Eminent lawer Sri Kapil Sibal ji will plead our case as understood from Gurmukh Singh ji earlier .our dealing advocates are read for hearing of d cases n sufficient data has been given by Praveen kohli ji to advocates to counter d stand of EPFP. most unfortunately Central Govt is fighting against us to deprive d poor EPS-95 pensioners from getting higher pension to meet food n medicine expenses at d last stage of their life in spite of orders of Supreme court n many high courts. so friends we have to wait for some days for d decision of Supreme Court.

Please take care of yourself n your family during this Corona pandemic

B Brahma AOEPFPA

 

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