EPS Pensioners Latest Update: EPS 95 Pensioners information is relevant to those pensioners who are covered under these categories

This post is relevant to those pensioners who are covered under the following categories:

• Who have deposited the differential amount but their pension has not been revised
• Whose pension has been revised but the pension revision arrears have not yet been released by EPFO
• Whose pension had been revised, arrears paid but their revised pension has been restored to the original pension (based on ceiling limit)
• Who have initiated litigation in view of above situations

Search Your Higher Pension Under EPS 95 Pension Scheme Below:

You may probably be aware that EPFO had issued a circular no. Pension/ Misc/ 2005/ 65836 dated 22.11.2006 (attached) wherein at Page-2, three categories of grievances relating to pension revision had been classified and their treatment had also been clarified/specified as under:

1. In all such cases where the employee has contributed over and above the statutory limit either from 16.3.1996 or from the month in which his salary exceeded the limit after having exercised his option and the same having been accepted by the office, the pensionable salary will be based on such salary.
2. If the option was not exercised at the time of salary crossing the statutory limit or on 16.3.1996, as the case may be and the contribution was deposited on salary exceeding the limit after receiving instructions from the office before the date of issue of circular dated 22.6.2004, the department has the vicarious liability(restricted to the specified cases only) of honouring such a commitment and hence the pensionable salary shall be on actual salary i.e. on the salary (exceeding the statutory limit) on which the contribution was paid. However, this is subject to i) a satisfactory explanation to be obtained and taken on record from the officer who made such a commitment, ii) the employer having remitted the administrative charges and other contributions on such higher salary.
3. In the cases where no option was given or no commitment was made by the concerned office, but the contribution on higher pay was deposited by the establishment/ employee, on their own, such excess contribution will be considered as erroneous contributions and the pensionable salary will be restricted to the statutory ceiling existing from time to time.

Cases of (a), (b) & (c) are fully covered in sr. no. 1 as they have contributed over & above the statutory limit w.e.f. 16.11.1995 (on the asking of EPFO) and the same had been accepted by the EPFO concerned.

Cases of (a), (b) & (c) are also fully covered in sr. no. 2 as they have contributed over & above the statutory limit w.e.f. 16.11.1995 (after receiving instructions from EPFO) and the same had been accepted by the EPFO concerned. At sr no. 2 of letter dt. 22.11.2006, it has been mentioned that “after receiving instructions from the office before the date of issue of circular dated 22.6.2004” but the latest stand/ objection regarding submission of options during service tenure only in accordance of Synopsis/Revised guidelines being NOW mentioned by EPFO, the same cannot be applied on the cases covered under sr. no. 1 & 2 above as EPFO cannot escape from their vicarious liability in accordance with the policy decision circulated vide circular dt. 22.11.2006 atleast in r/o cases wherein the differential amount had been deposited (as sought by EPFO) & accepted by EPFO and joint options under Para 11(3) in the performa provided by EPFO having been submitted by pensioners and accepted by EPFO prior to the date of issue of so called SYNOPSIS/ REVISED GUIDELINES, if any issued by EPFO HQ .

The pensioners should also fight on the basis of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution besides other strong points circulated from time to time as pension has already been revised in r/o 23668 pensioners as on 8.11.2019 across the country in compliance of circular dt. 23.3.2017 and as such, they cannot be discriminated.

In all the litigations, legal notices, representations etc, the pensioners (being similarly situated) must also quote the Austin Joseph case wherein the SLP No. 19954 of 2015 filed by EPFO had been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme court on 12.7.2016 after considering the following law points:

1. (a) WHETHER THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA HAS MISINTERPRETED THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF PARA 11(3) OF THE EPS, 1995
2. (b) Whether a person, who has ceased to be the member of the Pension Fund and who has never, exercised the option of paying the contribution on salary exceeding statutory limit of Rs. 6500/- (Rs. Six thousand five hundred only), is entitled to pensionable salary on higher salary
3. (c) Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Kerala gravely erred in law as it failed to appreciate that a person after retirement, who had already withdrawn entire amounts from the Provident Fund Account, cannot be entitled to pensionable salary under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 on higher salary
4. (d) Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Kerala committed an error of law by directing the Petitioners herein to accept the contributions to the Employees’ Pension Fund, 1995 from the respondents, who had retired and withdrawn entire amounts from their Fund and ceased to be member of the Pension Fund
5. (e) Whether the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Kerala erred in law by passing the impugned judgment on relying its earlier judgment in WA 1137 of 2012 wherein the employees’ had exercised their option of paying the contributions on actual higher salary during their employment and the issue was whether the authorities under Employees’ Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1956 was justified in setting a cut-off date for exercising the option whereas in the present case respondents had never exercised the option for paying contributions on actual higher salary rather they had withdrawn all the amounts from their Provident Fund Accounts and ceased to member of the Fund
6. (f) Whether the impugned judgment is not maintainable in law being against the objective and purpose of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995

(A) Single Bench of Kerala High Court:-
In the aforesaid Austin Joseph case before the Single Bench in CWP 254 of 2014 allowed on 4.3.2014 by the Kerala High Court, following issues were discussed:
Ø Petitioners stated that they had exercised option under Para 26(6) of EPF scheme 1952 but EPFO disputed this and asserted that it had not been done.
Ø The Court observed that “Be that as it may, it is admitted that the contribution to the Provident Fund being 12% of total salary deducted as employees contribution and the 12% paid by the employer, were remitted to the organisation”.
Ø The Court by referring the decision of WPC 6643 & 9929 of 2007 dt. 4.11.2011 (upheld by the Appellate Court) stated that the cut-off date prescribed is without jurisdiction and finally held as under:-

• (a) Following the binding precedents, this WP is also disposed of directing that the 8.33% of the employer’s contribution, proportionate to the salary of the employee, in excess of Rs. 6500 shall now be credited to Pension Scheme and orders passed in accordance with law. Needless to say, the interest accrued in the Provident Fund Account also will stand transferred to the Pension.
• (b) With respect to petitioners herein who are the retired employees, who have drawn their retirement benefits by way of Provident Fund proportionate amounts along with interest accrued in the account as also that accrued after the withdrawal of the Provident Fund amounts, have to be refunded to the Provident Fund Organisation. The employees and the employer shall also submit joint application, wherever the same has not been done. The above Writ Petition had been decided on 4.3.2014 in favor of Austin Joseph and others (retired employees)

(B) Division Bench of Kerala High Court:-
The EPFO filed a Writ Appeal No. 1362 of 2014 before the Division Bench against the above decision of Single Bench in Austin Joseph case but the same was also decided in favour of Retired employees on 17.10.2014.
In the Writ Appeal, the EPFO stated that the proviso to Para 11(3) of the Pension Scheme of 1995 would be applicable only till 1.12.2004 (being the cut-off date) but the Court negatived the same (by quoting several past decided cases) and held that the cut-off date fixed as 1.12.2004 is without any jurisdiction and the proviso to Para 11(3) of the Pension Scheme of 1995 is intended to be operative retrospectively from the date of commencement of the Scheme and therefore, employees are entitled to the benefit of the proviso if they are able to make good the arrears of contribution. The Writ appeal filed by EPFO was dismissed on 17.10.2014.

(C) SLP in Supreme Court:-
Finally, EPFO had filed an SLP No. 19954 of 2015 in the Apex Court which heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material and found no valid ground for interference & dismissed the same on 12.07.2016 - meaning thereby that the issue had attained finality and the decision had also been implemented by EPFO. So, as per the repeated decisions of the Apex Court, the same ratio also applies to all the similarly situated retired employees.
Thus in Austin Joseph case (SLP no. 19954 of 2015 dismissed on 12.7.16) had been finally decided by the Supreme Court and implemented by EPFO and have thus attained finality and accordingly, the options under Para 11(3) had been submitted by the concerned retirees after their retirement.