By email 28th Feb 2921
To
Sri Gurmukh Singh ji,
President NCR
-------------------------------------------------
Sir,
As the cases of EPS pension are going to be taken up by the hon'ble supreme court from 23rd march 2021 continuously on regular basis to settle them with a conclusion for justice, some perceptions that are in the minds of EPS 1995 pensioners to be brought to the kind knowledge of hon'ble supreme court before delivery of the justice for higher pension on actual wages without discrimination regardless of exempted or unexempted company I would like to share with you. They are mentioned as herein.
1) There are two definitions of the pensionable service.
One pensionable service is for grant of 2 years service weightage that includes the service under family pension scheme 1971 as per the letter No pension / 7915 dated 25 july 2016 of Sri S K Thakur Add .central P F .commissioner -1( pension) EPFO New Delhi .
The pensioners have gained /gain the benefit of two years weightage on completion of 20 years of service treated as PENSIONABLE SERVICE that includes the service of family pension scheme 1971.
The revision petition No 1563 of 2009 ( Regional PF commissioner & another Vs Subhash Chandra Banerjee & another ) has been decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 21-10-2016 in favour of the pensioners ruling that the service rendered under the family pension scheme 1971 counts to be pensionable service with EPS 1995 service.
Notwithstanding the above facts , the pension is fixed only on the EPS 95 service ignoring the service of family pension scheme 1971.
The pertinent point here is why only EPS 1995 service is taken for calculation of pension fixation, unaccounting / ignoring the service of family pension scheme 1971 is to be brought to the kind knowledge of hon'ble supreme court in the light of above facts as the majority of EPS 95 pensioners retired in the early period of 2000 with insufficient EPS 1995 service stand either unbenefited or negligibly benefited of higher pension on actual wages in the range not crossing the pension not much above Rs 3000. Now R C Gupta's case is being put to review taking a new turn.
This is the pensionable service factor that necessarily needs to be made it essentially a point to seek justice for fair pension given the above-said position.
The conditions imposed for compliance that the production of requisite records of PF recovery statements with the joint exercise of option while in service by the employee and employer for higher pension on actual wages are unjustified and uncalled for as the pensioners in their advanced age are not supposed to approach the concerned employer after the passage of years together for compliance of the conditions while the said records are already very much available with the concerned Regional offices and the employer has nothing to say on pension fixation while it makes no difference in their share contribution. In most of the cases, they fail to fulfill the conditions due to loss of the records over a period of a long time in employers office or closure of the companies and get denied of the benefit of higher pension.
The imposition of the conditions on the pensioners is a deliberate act of EPFO for either delay process or denial of the benefit of higher pension on actual wages as the case may be. The EPS 1995 pensioners have been denied of ECONOMIC RIGHTS by a violation of human rights Viz; (1) Right to adequate standard of living, (2) Right to social security (3) Right to food and health coming under the jurisdiction of Human rights commission that has not been addressed by the hon'ble national human rights commission New Delhi, despite having been brought to its knowledge on 21-5 -2019.
As regards the stand being taken by the EPFO for the regulation of pension benefit on actuarial method, the pensioners opine that the pension scheme is meant to be a worthwhile pension scheme that meets the needs of a basic livelihood. Sadly the EPS 1995 designed nowhere fits into what it speaks loudly. The worthwhile pension scheme can be formulated with 8 to 10 percent contribution to the pension fund as per the conclusion made by the International conference of actuaries .
The total contribution under the EPS 95 to the pension fund is in the ratio of 8.33 by the employer and 1.16 by the central govt putting together 9.49% happens to be in the range of 8 to 10% that suffices it for the purpose. Then why and how the concerned authorities say , make plea that the higher pension being sought would erode the fund base of EPS 1995 countering the conclusion of international conference of actuaries.
Does it make sense that the fate of pensioners lies in the hands of actuaries and valuers to form their own conclusion for the regulation of pension is also to be analysed with a right conscience?
There seems to be a dearth of competency in better management of pension fund that all has led to the formulation of UNLIVEABLE and UNFAIR PENSION system under which the pensioners are just surviving with untold and unspeakable sufferings on the dependency for their livelihood provided with the very meagre and meagre quantum of pension and not living their life with human dignity.
Further, the pensioners accounting to probably more than 30 lakhs draw the meagre pension not crossing much above Rs 3000 have to be given minimum economic security to live their life with some human dignity that needs around an amount of 9000 plus DA being the present average cost of living across the nation that could be ensured only by a hike of minimum pension.
The right to life as enshrined in the Indian constitution is to be ensured/protected in respect of these pensioners. Minimum economic security is a must to ensure the right to life. Whether the hon'ble govt takes care of it or wait for a word of advice from the hon'ble supreme court or the CBT decides it for grant of a hike of minimum pension matters very much now to the pensioners.
The pension with its periodical revisions combined with applicable dearness allowance can only meet its purpose. This is to be put before the hon'ble supreme court.
I request that these views of the pensioners may kindly be put before the lawyers to seek justice from the hon'ble supreme court pinpointing all these drawbacks, deficiencies of the EPS 1995.
Thanking you with regards.
Your kind response is highly is appreciated.
ShamRao, national secretary,
EPS 1995 pensioners coordination committee.
BIDAR, Karnataka.
