Dear EPS 95 Pensioners,
Today Praveen Kohali Sir shared some important documents which are not available with any one across the country as these have been obtained for the first time under RTI by anyone from HP Tourism Development Corporation. Lot of precious time & efforts have been taken by Praveen Kohali Sir to scanning of these document by his mobile.
Search More EPS 95 Pensioners documents:
(A) Following three WPs had been filed in the HP High Court and all the three WPs had been decided on 13.3.2012 in favour of petitioners (employees)
1. CWP no. 426/2007 filed on 30.3.2007 by 6 individuals (including Mr. RC Gupta).
2. CWP no. 760/2011 filed on 23.2.2011 by the HPTDC Employees Union
3. CWP no. 763/2011 filed on 23.2.2011 by the HP Paryatan Vikas Nigam Karamchari Sangh
(B) LPAs (Writ Appeals) had been filed by EPFO Shimla against the decision dt. 13.3.2012 of the Single Bench in all the three cases vide nos. 411, 412 & 413 of 2012. These were decided in favour of EPFO by the Division Bench
(C) SLP no. 33032/2015 (CA 10013-10014/2016) arising out of LPA 411/2012 had been filed by Mr. RC Gupta & ors whereas SLP no. 33033/2015 arising out of LPA 412/2012 had been filed by HPTDC Employees Union respectively in the Supreme Court of India which were decided on 4.10.2016
I had filed three RTI applications on 15.10.2019 & 22.10.2019. The replies and documents as received are being shared. I have also filed 1st Appeal in all the three cases TODAY (27.11.2019) which have also been attached with respective file, just for the information of pensioner friends.
Click Below Link to Download These Important Documents:
Today Praveen Kohali Sir shared some important documents which are not available with any one across the country as these have been obtained for the first time under RTI by anyone from HP Tourism Development Corporation. Lot of precious time & efforts have been taken by Praveen Kohali Sir to scanning of these document by his mobile.
Search More EPS 95 Pensioners documents:
(A) Following three WPs had been filed in the HP High Court and all the three WPs had been decided on 13.3.2012 in favour of petitioners (employees)
1. CWP no. 426/2007 filed on 30.3.2007 by 6 individuals (including Mr. RC Gupta).
2. CWP no. 760/2011 filed on 23.2.2011 by the HPTDC Employees Union
3. CWP no. 763/2011 filed on 23.2.2011 by the HP Paryatan Vikas Nigam Karamchari Sangh
(B) LPAs (Writ Appeals) had been filed by EPFO Shimla against the decision dt. 13.3.2012 of the Single Bench in all the three cases vide nos. 411, 412 & 413 of 2012. These were decided in favour of EPFO by the Division Bench
(C) SLP no. 33032/2015 (CA 10013-10014/2016) arising out of LPA 411/2012 had been filed by Mr. RC Gupta & ors whereas SLP no. 33033/2015 arising out of LPA 412/2012 had been filed by HPTDC Employees Union respectively in the Supreme Court of India which were decided on 4.10.2016
I had filed three RTI applications on 15.10.2019 & 22.10.2019. The replies and documents as received are being shared. I have also filed 1st Appeal in all the three cases TODAY (27.11.2019) which have also been attached with respective file, just for the information of pensioner friends.
Click Below Link to Download These Important Documents:
- a. Copy of the WP 426/2007 with all Annexure
- b. Copy of the reply of EPFO & Employer (HPTDC)
- c. Copy of the WP 760/2011 with all Annexure
- d. Copy of the reply of EPFO & Employer (HPTDC)
- e. Copy of the WP 763/2011 with all Annexure
- f. Copy of the reply of EPFO & Employer (HPTDC)
- g. Copy of LPA 411/2012
- h. Copy of LPA 412/2012
- i. Copy of LPA 413/2012
Paper book of RC Gupta case containing SLP and Judgments of HP High Court (Single Bench & Division Bench) as obtained from EPFO HQ.
AS PER EPFO, OPTIONS UNDER Para 26(6) & Para 11(3) CAN BE EXERCISED EITHER ON COMMENCEMENT OF THE SCHEME OR WHEN THE WAGES OF THAT PARTICULAR PERSON EXCEED THE CEILING LIMIT.
IT IS A FACT THAT NO EMPLOYEE OF HPTDC HAD EXERCISED JOINT OPTION UNDER Para 26(6) OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952 BUT SINCE INCEPTION, THEY (EMPLOYEE & EMPLOYER) HAD BEEN CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND ON THEIR ACTUAL WAGES.
SIMILARLY, CORRESPONDENCE HAD BEEN EXCHANGED BY EMPLOYER/ HPTDC WITH EPFO IN 2005/2006 REGARDING OPTIONS UNDER Para 11(3) OF EPS BUT THE SAME HAD BEEN REJECTED BY EPFO BECAUSE OF ABOVE STATED PROVISION WHICH NECESSITATED THE FILING OF WRIT PETITIONS.
AS PER EPFO, OPTIONS UNDER Para 26(6) & Para 11(3) CAN BE EXERCISED EITHER ON COMMENCEMENT OF THE SCHEME OR WHEN THE WAGES OF THAT PARTICULAR PERSON EXCEED THE CEILING LIMIT.
IT IS A FACT THAT NO EMPLOYEE OF HPTDC HAD EXERCISED JOINT OPTION UNDER Para 26(6) OF THE EPF SCHEME 1952 BUT SINCE INCEPTION, THEY (EMPLOYEE & EMPLOYER) HAD BEEN CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND ON THEIR ACTUAL WAGES.
SIMILARLY, CORRESPONDENCE HAD BEEN EXCHANGED BY EMPLOYER/ HPTDC WITH EPFO IN 2005/2006 REGARDING OPTIONS UNDER Para 11(3) OF EPS BUT THE SAME HAD BEEN REJECTED BY EPFO BECAUSE OF ABOVE STATED PROVISION WHICH NECESSITATED THE FILING OF WRIT PETITIONS.
Posts
0 Comments