EPS 95 Higher Pension News: Settlement of higher pension cases by EPFO field offices as per the RC Gupta judgment on actual wages

SEARCH YOUR NAME IN EPS 95 HIGHER PENSION LIST

1. Sir, as it is not the domain of EPFO to explore and expound on the technical, legal and financial angles and ramifications of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the RC Gupta case related to grant of pension on higher wages, we shall not attempt it. However, the issues that have arisen due to haphazard communication and directions issued in the above matter and especially recent uncalled-for open threats issued from the very highest level to EPF officers have forced the EPFO to request you to address this matter.

2. As you are aware EPFO Head Office had conveyed to all field offices the order to implement the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in RC Gupta case vide circular dated 23.03.2017, and thereafter a clarification was issued vide circular dated 31.05.2017 to restrict the benefits arising out of the above case to employees of un-exempted establishments. The Pandora’s Box opened above resulted in immediate and immense pressure on field offices from pensioners, trade unions, employers, courts, etc. to revise their pension on higher wages. Simultaneously, multiple legal actions were initiated against EPFO by those who were kept out of the pie.

3. Many practical and theoretical issues that arose during the implementation of the above circular dated 23.03.2017 were forwarded to Head Office by field offices but these were never addressed, instead directions were issued to expedite the settlement and it was conveyed that concerned RPFC-I/Incharge of the Region will be held responsible for denial/delay in settlement of such cases for eligible members. Issues raised by concerned RPFCs / ACCs in Video Conferences and meetings were brushed aside with generalized statements and unofficial orders were issued to not escalate any issue to the HO level. It was never ever clarified as to who is an eligible member whose pension is to be revised and it was directed to read the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and interpret them on their own. In fact, HO had issued a circular on 22.01.2019 which clarified some of the major issues being faced by field offices, but unfortunately the entire circular was withdrawn on the plea of contempt of court action, even though a significant part of said circular did not deal with issues involving contempt of court.

4. Ultimately, many offices were forced to work out their individual strategies to address the issue and settle such cases. This was done as much to redress grievances as to avoid contempt of court actions against senior officers such as Secretary (L&E) & CPFC. But a natural consequence of this was that every office had a nique approach to the same issue. Some offices started settling pension cases on higher wages without seeking evidence of submission of joint option under paragraph 26(6) of EPF Scheme 1952, others refused to entertain any member without the same. Some offices demanded that pensioners must deposit an additional 1.16% Govt. share of contribution on wages exceeding statutory limit along with a differential share of contribution, others didn’t ask for the same. Some offices even refused to entertain any request for revision of pension on one pretext or the other. This unique situation where every field office had to reinvent the wheel but obviously led to unique solutions for every field office. Thus in the same organization a number of different policies emerged depending upon who spoke to whom for seeking verbal clarifications.

5. Now at this stage there appears to be a rethink at senior levels, but unfortunately, instead of clarifying and clearing this mess, it appears that even more unique results shall be created. It has emerged that during the recent conference on pension litigation held at PDNASS, New Delhi on 18.05.2019, it was conveyed at the highest level that many of those offices that have revised pension on higher wages have violated the directions of HO and it was threatened that due responsibility shall be fixed against them. And what is of even more significance is that it has been conveyed that without any written or explicit directions from HO, field offices must obtain independent legal opinion at their level on the RC Gupta case and its implementation in their region, and accordingly stop revision of pension on higher wages, and what is even more daunting, recover pension, arrears, etc.

6. Although it is not the domain of EPFO to go into the legal implications of any court order or EPFO’s the interpretation/implementation or re-interpretation, etc. of the same, it is definitely our domain if such orders are unofficially issued and it is expected that they shall be followed based upon the open threat of action. If there is indeed a rethink on the RC Gupta case, what is stopping EPFO to come out openly and issue clear-cut directions to all field offices? If even then some officers in the field deliberately violate such official orders then nothing stops from due disciplinary action being initiated against them.

7. It is indeed very juvenile to believe that just by pretending that we never issued directions to revise the pension of all eligible employees/pensioners of un-exempted establishments in accordance with the RC Gupta case, we can put the genie back in the bottle. And neither will blame EPFO officers for this fiasco help anyone. The implementation of the RC Gupta case in the manner that it is being implemented by many offices across the country was a conscious policy decision at the highest level at that time, and due intimations were sent by many offices to HO at that time regarding the manner of its implementation. Furthermore, monthly returns were submitted by such offices in the prescribed manner. Now, suddenly we cannot pretend that all of us had our eyes closed during this entire time. If any field office had wrongly implemented any directions due to lack of any communication or clarification then it should have been duly corrected and clarified at that point in time. Instead, it is now being alleged from the highest level that EPFO officers are involved in some vast and massive conspiracy with the pensioners to revise their pension on higher wages in gross violation of all directions.

8. Therefore, on behalf of all our members, I sincerely urge you to ensure that no further scope is left for alleging misrepresentation / wrong application of directions and clear-cut policy guidelines are issued on this critical issue, whatever they may be.