“EPFO Misguiding Courts? RC Gupta Judgement Gives Hope to Pre-Sept-2014 EPS-95 Pensioners”

This is from the pen of Narayana Gupta, a senior EPS 95 pension analyst from Telangana

Join Our WhatsApp Group

*EPFO MIS GUIDING THE HIGH COURTS AND THE SUPREME COURT AGAINST PRE 01 09 14 RETIREES.*

*UNDERSTANDING THE RC GUPTA LAND MARK JUDGEMENT TO UNDERSTAND THE PARA 44 V OF SUNIL KUMAR B JUDGEMENT.*

*AN ANALYSIS BY*
*G NARAYANA.*
*M.Com, PGDPA, PGDPR, DCA.*

*PART III*

*To understand the para 44 V OF SUNIL KUMAR B judgement of supreme court dated 04 11 22, it is to be understood the RC Gupta judgement of supreme court.*

*The following are the contents of the RC Gupta judgement.*

*PARA 10 AT PAGE 7*

*We do not see how excercise of option under para 26 of the Provident Fund scheme can be construed to estop the employees from exercising a similar option under para 11 3.*

*If both the employer and employee opt for deposit against the actual salary not on the ceiling amount excercise of option under para 26 of the Provident Fund scheme is inevitable.*

*PARA 11 PAGE 7&8*

*The above apart in a situation where the deposit of the employer,s share at 12% has been on the actual salary and not on the ceiling amount we do not see how the Provident Commissioner could have been aggrieved to file the LPA. before the division bench of the High court.*

*All that the Provident Commissioner is required to do in the case is an adjustment of accounts which in turn would have benefited some of the employees.*

*At the best what Provident Commissioner could do and which we permit him to do under the present order is to seek return of all such amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withdrawn from their Provident Fund account before granting them the benifit of the provision to Clause 11 3 of the pension scheme.*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.*

*PARA 12 PAGE 8*

*Consequently and in light of the above we allow these appeals and set aside the order of the Division bench of High court.*

*The brief of the RC Gupta judgement in lay man’s language.*

*If the employee and employer opted under para 26 6 for contribution to PROVIDENT FUND at 12% , the option under para 11 3 for pension on Higher Wages can not be stopped.*

*If employer and employee opt for pension on Higher Wages the amount lying in Provident Fund can be transferred to pension fund by a transfer/book adjustment.*

*In case retired employees the Provident Commissioner can seek return of all the differential amounts which the employee withdrawn from the Provident Fund account.*

*Once the employees deposit the amount, he should be given consequential benefits.*

*In this judgement it is very clear that even after retirement the retiree can opt for pension on Higher Wages.*

*And in Sunil Kumar judgement the bench clarified that the bench has gone through the RC Gupta judgement and did not find any defect in the judgement and also said they upheld the RC Gupta judgement. And also said that there is no need to make any modifications to RC Gupta judgement.*

*RC Gupta judgement is for pre 01 09 14 retirees.*
*And the RC Gupta judgement was upheld in Sunil Kumar B judgement which is for post 01 09 14 retirees.*

*In view of the above there is no reason to deney the options of Pre 01 09 14 retirees for pension on Higher Wages.*

*PLEASE WATCH FOR PART IV*

*G Narayana.*

Join Our Telegram Group