For Information of all EPS 95 members,
On 24.08.2021, The Supreme Court in the matter of EPS took note of the submissions made by Mr. A. Sundaram, Sr. Counsel for EPFO, as briefly summarized below.
1. There is an inherent cut-off date in the proviso to para 11(3) of the EPS scheme
2. The Constitution Bench decision in Krishna Kumar case (1990 SC) provides that PF and pension fund are different and distinct— this judgment was noticed in RC Gupta
3. If a belated contribution is allowed to be made in terms of RC Gupta dicta, then the investment pattern will differ and it will be unjust for those who had invested earlier vis a vis those who pay at a belated stage.
4. These aspects were not considered in RC Gupta and the supposed account adjustment may not be possible.
In view of the above submissions, the Court without expressing any opinion on the above submissions deemed it proper to refer the matter to a bench of at least 3 Judges for full adjudication. Please note that RC Gupta's judgment was delivered by two judge’s benches.
Although several counsels from our side including Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate, submitted before the court not to make any opinion for referring the matter without hearing us. She impressed upon the court how RC Gupta's judgment could be a good law for pensioners from un-exempted establishments and bad law for members from exempted establishments. She also argued that the RC Gupta judgment has already been accepted by the Govt. of India and it has never been challenged in any court of law.
However, the bench informed us that we are not making any opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Sundaram but we are of the view that certain issues raised by him can’t be decided by these two judge’s bench. Therefore, instead of allowing the hearing to go on and deciding a later date of referring to a larger bench, it is better to refer the matter to a larger bench at this stage itself to save the time where all the issues can be addressed. Thanking you. B. B. Prasad
Posts
0 Comments