Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Good News For EPS 95 Pensioners: EPS 1995 के प्रावधानों को समझने और पेंशन न मिलने, डिजिटल लाइफ सर्टिफिकेट आदि जैसी समस्याओं का हुआ समाधान

कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि संगठन (EPFO), क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय - जम्मू मंगलवार को आउटरीच कार्यक्रम निधि आपके निकट और पेंशन अदालत का आयोजन कर रहा है, जिसके दौरान क्षेत्रीय पीएफ आयुक्त- I रिजवान उद्दीन व्यक्तिगत रूप से सभी हितधारकों की शिकायतों और मुद्दों को सुना।

निधि आपके निकट एक सार्वजनिक आउटरीच कार्यक्रम है जो सभी हितधारकों की समस्याओं और शिकायतों को दूर करने का प्रयास करता है। कर्मचारियों और नियोक्ताओं को एक सामान्य मंच पर लाकर और संगठन (ईपीएफओ) द्वारा उनके हित में की गई नई पहलों के बारे में जागरूकता बढ़ाकर और उन्हें संवेदनशील बनाकर।

पेंशन अदालत मौजूदा और भावी पेंशनभोगियों को EPS 1995 के प्रावधानों को समझने और पेंशन न मिलने, डिजिटल लाइफ सर्टिफिकेट आदि जैसी उनकी पेंशन संबंधी शिकायतों के समाधान के लिए EPFO अधिकारियों के साथ घनिष्ठ बातचीत के लिए एक मंच प्रदान करती है।


सभी हितधारकों को उनकी शिकायतों के त्वरित निपटान के लिए और/या EPFO से संबंधित किसी भी समस्या का सामना करने के लिए उपरोक्त कार्यक्रम में भाग लेने के लिए आमंत्रित किया जाता है।

यहां जारी एक आधिकारिक बयान में कहा गया था कि यह स्थान ईपीएफओ क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, रेलवे रोड, जम्मू, 180012 सुबह 10.30 बजे से आयोजित होंगी।



 


EPS 95 Pensioners Latest News: Cases registered by the Human Rights Commission for not implementing the Supreme court judgement dtd 4 11 22 by EPFO

Following cases registered by the Human Rights Commission for (1) not implementing the Supreme court judgement dtd 4 11 22 by EPFO for pension on higher wages/salary under EPS 95 pension scheme (2) option of excercising  11(3) and 11(4) in between employee and employer for pension on higher salary.

Karnataka SHRC has registered a case no. 4208/10/11/2022 on the complaint regarding Vishwanath Wali.-HRCNET,NHRC

Karnataka SHRC has registered a case no. 4209/10/11/2022 on the complaint regarding Vishwanath Wali.-HRCNET,NHRC

  • 1. EPFO has implemented EPS 95 pension scheme from 16/11/1995 to their pf members.

  • 2. Employee contributing 12% of their basic salary and employer is also contributing equal amount to the EPFO.

  • 3. Out of employer contribution 8.33% transferring to EPS 95 pension by EPFO. But EPFO is transferring 8.33% on ceiling salary of RS.5000,6500 pension account and difference to members pf account.

  • 4. On ceiling salary pension will be getting on retirement a very minimum amount of RS.500,600...etc.

    5. Our demand is pension is paid on actual salary instead of ceiling salary.

  • 6. Accordingly Some of pensioners filed suit in High court for pension to be paid on actual salary.

  • .7. High court judgement made in favour of pensioners as pension will be on actual salary.

  • 8. EPFO have disagreed the High court judgement and made appeal with Supreme court.

  • 9. Supreme court judgement made on 04/11/2022 upheld the High court judgement

  • 10. EPFO have still not implemented the decision of Supreme court judgement so far.

  • 11. Hence the complaint made with Human Rights dept.

 


 


Monday, July 25, 2022

Entertainment News: ईशा गुप्ता ने शेयर की बाथरूम की फोटो, बो*डैलनेस की सारी हदें तोड़ दीं, तस्वीर देख पसीना आ गया

बॉलीवुड एक्ट्रेस ईशा गुप्ता बेशक बहुत कम फिल्मों का हिस्सा रही हैं, लेकिन उन्होंने दर्शकों के दिलों में अपने लिए जगह जरूर बनाई है। ईशा पिछले कुछ समय से बड़े पर्दे से दूर हैं। हालांकि इसके बावजूद वह खबरों का हिस्सा बनी रहती हैं। इसका एक खास कारण ईशा का बो*ल्ड अवतार है। पिछले कुछ दिनों में उन्होंने अपने बोल्ड लुक से सोशल मीडिया पर तहलका मचा दिया है। हर दिन वह अपनी हदें पार करती नजर आ रही हैं।


ईशा ने शेयर किया अपना बाथरूम लुक

वहीं एक्ट्रेस अपने फैंस से जुड़े रहने के लिए सोशल मीडिया पर काफी एक्टिव रहती हैं। फैंस को उनका बोल्ड लुक लगभग हर दिन देखने को मिलता है। ईशा पिछले कुछ समय से अपने सुपर बोल्ड लुक्स की वजह से चर्चा में हैं। अब उन्होंने अपनी एक ऐसी तस्वीर शेयर की है, जिसे देखने के बाद लोगों के पसीने छूट गए हैं।

ईशा की तस्वीर देखकर पसीना आ गया

दरअसल, इस बार ईशा ने इंटरनेट का पारा बढ़ाने के लिए बाथरूम लुक शेयर किया है। इसमें वह फोन से मिरर सेल्फी लेती नजर आ रही हैं। इस तस्वीर में ईशा इतनी हॉट और ग्लैमरस लग रही हैं कि फैंस के पसीने छूट गए हैं।

ये सेल्फी उन्होंने बाथरूम में क्लिक की। फोटो में ईशा व्हाइट कलर की बेहद डीप नेक ब्रालेट पहने नजर आ रही हैं। इसके साथ उन्होंने स्काईब्लू ट्राउजर पेयर किया है।

इस तरह एक्ट्रेस ने पूरा किया लुक

लुक को और अट्रैक्टिव बनाने के लिए ईशा ने लाइट मेकअप किया है और उनके बाल बंधे हुए हैं। कानों में गोल्डन ईयररिंग्स उनके लुक में चार चांद लगा रहे हैं।

कुछ ही देर में इस फोटो पर लाखों लाइक्स आ चुके हैं और सिर्फ फैंस ही नहीं बल्कि तमाम सेलेब्स खूब कमेंट करते नजर आ रहे हैं। ईशा की बोल्डनेस देखकर हर कोई हैरान है। 36 साल की उम्र में भी एक्ट्रेस ने खुद को काफी फिट रखा है।

CODE

 

Thursday, September 2, 2021

Good News for EPS 95Pensioner: मा. श्री भूपेन्द्र यादव जी, केंद्रीय श्रम एंव रोजगार मंत्री, न्यूनतम पेंशन बढ़ोतरी 9000+DA, के लिए बैठक संपन्न। जल्द होगी EPS 95 पेंशन में बढ़ोतरी

मा. प्रकाश पाठक, राष्ट्रीय महासचिव, निवृत कर्मचारी(1995) राष्ट्रीय समन्वय समिति द्वारा मिली जानकारी केनुसार दिनांक 01सितम्बर 2021 को सुबह 8.20 बजे मानणीय श्री भूपेन्द्र यादवजी, श्रम एवंम् रोजगार मंत्री भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली ईनके पंडारा रोड के बंगले पर बैठक हुई। इस बैठक में EPS 95 राष्ट्रीय को आर्डिनेशन कमेटी, मख्यालय,नागपुर के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष श्री प्रकाश जी येंडे, राष्ट्रीय उपाध्यक्ष श्री पुंडलिक जी, पांडे एवंम्  ऊत्तर प्रदेश के कार्यकारी सदस्य श्री विनोद वर्मा उपस्थित थे। इस बैठक में सबसे पहले प्रकाश येंडे जी ने मा. मंत्री महोदय जी का अभिनंदन किया और चर्चा को बुलाने के लिए आभार व्यक्त किया।


इस बैठक मे EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों की समस्या को लेकर  बताते हुए कहा की सर पिछले 4 सालमे करीब करीब 3 लाख पेंशनर लोगों की मौत हो चुकी है 'लेकीन 10 साल से चल रहे आंदोलनकारी पेंशनरो को 01 सितम्बर 2014 से शुरु की गई 1000 रुपये की पेंशन मे कोई बढोत्तरी नही होने की वजह से सभी EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों का जीना मुश्किल हो चुका है। ईसलिए आप मिनीमम पेंशन जो की भगसिंग कोशियारी समिति के शिफारसो के तहत बढाकर ईन सिनियर सिटीझन को सन्मानजनक पेंशन देकर 'बुढापे मे राहत दे। साथ ही मा. श्री पुंडलिक पांडे जी ने मंत्री महोदय को बताया की हर EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों मिलनेवाली मिनीमम पेंशन को महंगाई भत्ते से जोडा जाए।


तभी ईस महंगाई मे सभी  EPS 95 पेंशनधारक सही मायने मे जी सकेंगे। ऊसी तरह सभी  EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों को प्रधान मंत्री जन आरोग्य योजना का कार्डं देकर ऊनके स्वास्थ की रक्षा करे। और अंत मे विधवा/विधुर पेंशन को 50% की जगह 100%, मा. श्री निर्मला सीतारमण जी द्वारा बैंक कर्मचारियों के तरह  EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों को भी बहाल करे। क्यो की पेंशनर की म्रुत्यु होने के बाद ऊसका पेंशन फंड तो कम नही होता।


तो पेंशन कम नही होनी चाहीये। ईसपर मंत्रीजी ने कहा कि 'अभी हमारा मंत्रालय ईन सभी मुद्दोपर बिचारविनिमय कर रहा है, और नजदिक भविष्य मे EPS 95 पेंशनधारकों की समस्या को लेकर अच्छा निर्णय लिया जाएगा। अंत मे श्री विनोद वर्मा ने मंत्रीजी का आभार माना, और फोटो निकालने के लिए मोबाईल निकाला तो मंत्रीजी ने कहा कि बंगले पर मै कम समय रहता हु ईसलिए कोई भी फोटो ना निकाले। 


 


Tuesday, August 24, 2021

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

 

Sunday, August 22, 2021

Good News For EPS 95 Pensioners: सुप्रीम कोर्ट का एक फैसला और पेंशन की लिमिट ₹15000 से बढ़करहोगी पूरी सैलरी EPS 95 के तहत होगी कई गुना पेंशन बढ़ोतरी, मिलेगी 25000 रुपए तक पेंशन

कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि संगठन (EPFO) के लगभग 6.5 करोड़ सब्सक्राइबर्स के लिए बड़ी खबर है।  आपके पेंशन फंड की सीलिंग को लेकर सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 24 अगस्त को बड़ा फैसला हो सकता है।  मामला अभी सुप्रीम कोर्ट में है और लगातार सुनवाई चल रही है।  EPFO के सूत्रों की मानें तो सरकार ज्यादा से ज्यादा लोगों को PF के दायरे में लाना चाहती है।  मामला पेंशन के लिए 15000 रुपए की बेसिक सैलरी पर सीलिंग का है।  मौजूदा नियमों के मुताबिक, EPS पेंशन में 15000 रुपए की लिमिट है।  ऐसे में पेंशन फंड में हर महीने अधिकतम 1250 रुपए ही जमा हो सकते हैं।  कुल मिलाकर अगर सीलिंग पर फैसला होता है तो सीधे तौर पर बेसिक सैलरी की सीलिंग बढ़ जाएगी।  इसे 25000 रुपए किया जा सकता है।


बेसिक सैलरी की सीलिंग?

EPF कॉन्ट्रिब्यूशन के लिए इस वक्त 15000 रुपए बेसिक सैलरी की सीलिंग है।  इसे बढ़ाया जा सकता है।  अगर किसी व्यक्ति की बेसिक सैलरी 30000 रुपए है तो उस सैलरी पर उसका 12 फीसदी कंट्रीब्यूशन प्रोविडेंट फंड (Provident Fund contribution) में जमा होता है।  इतना ही शेयर एम्प्लॉयर (Employer) के खाते से भी होता है।  लेकिन, एम्प्लॉयर के हिस्से को दो जगह जमा किया जाता है।  पहला- EPF और दूसरा- पेंशन (EPS)।


EPS 95 पेंशन कोष में सिर्फ 15000 रुपए का 8.33 % यानि 1250 रुपए जमा होते हैं

एम्प्लॉयर के 12 फीसदी हिस्से को भी 30000 रुपए की बेसिक सैलरी पर ही जमा होगा।  लेकिन, पेंशन फंड में बेसिक सैलरी की सीलिंग 15000 रुपए है।  लिमिट होने की वजह से बेसिक सैलरी (15000) का 8.33 फीसदी हिस्सा सिर्फ 1250 रुपए ही जमा होता है।  लिमिट बढ़ती है तो ये हिस्सा 25000 रुपए की सीमा पर तय हो सकता है। मतलब 2083 रुपए पेंशन फंड में जमा हो सकेंगे।

30000 रुपए के हिसाब से मौजूदा स्ट्रक्चर को समझें

बेसिक सैलरी- 30000 रुपए

कर्मचारी का कंट्रीब्यूशन- 12 फीसदी के हिसाब से 3600 रुपए

एम्प्लॉयर का कंट्रीब्यूशन-12 फीसदी का 3.67 फीसदी के हिसाब से 2350 रुपए

पेंशन में कंट्रीब्यूशन- 8.33 फीसदी के हिसाब से 1250 रुपए


सीलिंग बढ़ाने पर हो सकता है फैसला

EPFO के एक ट्रस्‍टी केई रघुनाथन के मुताबिक, मौजूदा वक्त में बेसिक सैलरी की सीलिंग 15 हजार रुपए है, जिसे बढ़ाकर 25 हजार रुपए तक करने का प्रस्ताव काफी पहले रखा जा चुका है।  सुप्रीम कोर्ट में अब इस मसले पर फैसला होना है।  अगर फैसला बढ़ाने पर आता है तो निश्चित तौर पर पेंशन की रकम में इजाफा होगा।  पेंशन फंड बढ़ने के अलावा दूसरा फायदा यह भी है कि बेसिक सैलरी सीलिंग के ऊपर जिन लोगों की सैलरी है, उनके लिए PF का कॉन्ट्रिब्यूशन वैकल्पिक होता है।  ऐसे में अब इस दायरे में ज्यादा लोग आ पाएंगे।

6.5 करोड़ लोगों को मिलेगा फायदा

कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि संगठन के रिटायर्ड एन्फोर्समेंट ऑफिसर भानु प्रताप शर्मा के मुताबिक, अगर यह फैसला होता है तो इसका फायदा 6.5 करोड़ EPFO सब्सक्राइबर्स को मिलेगा।  पहला ये कि ज्यादा लोग इसके दायरे में आएंगे और दूसरा एम्प्लॉयर का शेयर बढ़ेगा तो पेंशन फंड (Pension fund EPS) में भी इजाफा होगा।  हालांकि, अभी इस फैसले को अमल में लाने के लिए समय लग सकता है।

यूनिवर्सल मिनिमम वेज का फॉर्मूला

सूत्रों की मानें तो सेंट्रल बोर्ड ऑफ ट्रस्टी (CBT) के मेंबर्स Pension fund पर लगी लिमिट को बढ़ाने के पक्ष में हैं।  इसके पीछे दो तरह की दलील हैं।  पहला- देश भर में जो यूनिवर्सल मिनिमम वेज (Universal Minimum Wage) का फॉर्मूला लागू किया जाना है, उसमें सैलरी 18 हजार रुपए के करीब निर्धारित की जा सकती है।  ऐस में जो मौजूदा सैलरी सीलिंग है, उसमें बढ़ोतरी करने की जरूरत है।  इसके जरिए ज्यादा से ज्यादा लोगों को EPFO में लाने में मदद मिलेगी और सोशल सिक्योरिटी बढ़ेगी।



Wednesday, August 18, 2021

Good News for 67 Lakh EPS 95 Pensioners: Supreme Court 18 August Hearing Final Decision, Final Update on EPS 95 Higher Pension Cases Heard on 18 August

Supreme Court 18 August Hearing Update

Today's Hearing on EPS 95 Higher Pension Cases is finished. Decision to ne announced on Tuesday as to whether to be further heard or to be referred to 3 judge bench.

Details update coming soon on todai hearing. Stay with us.

Thursday, August 12, 2021

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)



 


EPS 95 PENSIONERS SUPREME COURT TODAY'S UPDATE | 12 AUGUST HEARING SUPREME COURT NEWS

12-08-2021
Dear friends, greetings to all.
After great struggles, our pension case at Supreme Court is posted for hearing from 17-08-2021 Tuesday as Item number 1. continuously up to finalisation.
Justice UU.Lalith informed the court and advice all to prepare for this.
Appearing from top: in judges chamber.
1. Justice UU.Lalith
2.justice Ajai Rastogi
Advocates 
1.Mr.Chidambaresh
2. Mr.Aryama sundaram
3.Mr.Basanth
4.Mrs.Meenakshi Arora.
5.Mr.Thampa Thoma
6.Mr.KK.Kumar
Let us hope the best
G.Murugaiyan
President 
JAC