EPFO’s Misguiding Spree Continues: Affidavit Twists Supreme Court Judgement

This is from the pen of G. Srinivas Rao, EPS 95 pension analyst

Join Our WhatsApp Group

” EPFO’s uninterrupted “misguiding spree” of the Hon’ble Supreme Court”

In the just received copy of the affidavit from Sri Parveen Kohliji, filed by EPFO before the Hon’ble Supreme Court inconnection with the appeal filed against the judgement of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court of 28th March, 2025, it was stated on Page 18 & 19 as follows:

” The second error made by the Kerala High Court was that relying upon R.C. Gupta, it permitted exercise of second option (option under proviso to para no: 11(3)) even for those who who had exited the pension scheme. The High Court overlooked the fact that R C Gupta had held that the second option could be exercised anytime during the membership of the scheme, but it could not permit exercising the second option “beyond the membership”.

Concerned para of the Judgement of the R C Gupta:

Para No. 11 is split into three parts for easy understanding:

11 The above apart in a situation where the deposit of the employer’s share at 12% has been on actural salary and not on the ceiling amount, we do not see how the Provident Fund Commissioner could have been aggrieved to file the L.P.A. before the Division Bench of the High Court. (Part I of the para)

11. All that the Provident Fund Commissioner is required to do in the case is an adjustment of accounts which in turn would have benefitted some of the employees. (Part II of the Para)

(meant for those who are in service at the time of judgement)

11 At best what the Provident Fund 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to do under the present order is to seek a return of all such amounts that the concerned employee may have taken or “withdrawn” from their Provident Fund Account before granting them the benefit of the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Pension Scheme.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.

( In case of retired employees who retired on or before 31-08-2014)

meaning of “withdrawn”

Para No. 69 of Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952:

69 Circumstances in which accumulations in the Fund are payable to a member. — (1) a member may “withdraw” the “full amount” standing to his credit in the Fund–
(a) on retirement from service after attaining the age of 55 years:

(Hence, the meaning of “withdrawn” carry the same meaning both in Para 11 of the judgement of R C Gupta and also in Para No. 69 of EPFS,’52)

Further, an employee need not compulsorily withdraw the amount under EFPS, ’52 on retirement. He may keep the same for another “three years” to get interest as per the rates declared by EPFO from year to year.

Join Our Telegram Group