अधीनस्थ कानून पर समिति EPS 95 लोक सभा को प्रस्तुत किया गया, तब क्या हुआ ?

अधीनस्थ कानून पर समिति(2015-2016) छह लोक सभा बारहवीं रिपोर्ट कर्मचारियों की पेंशन योजना में संशोधन, 1995 लोक सभा को 10.8.2016 को प्रस्तुत किया गया लोक सभा सचिव नई दिल्ली अगस्त, 2016 / श्रावण, 1938 (साका)

निष्कर्ष निकाला जा रहा है

1.18. समिति ने यह भी ध्यान दिया कि 12 महीने की औसत वेतन 60 महीने के आधार पर 1995 की पेंशन योजना में शामिल होने वाले व्यक्ति की पेंशन की गणना करने के मानदंडों में संशोधन करके औसत वेतन w.e.f. 1 सितंबर, ग्राहकों के लिए संशोधन के पूर्वव्यापी आवेदन और उनके हितों को प्रतिकूल रूप से प्रभावित करने के लिए 2014 राशि । समिति के विचार से इस तरह के संशोधन को अधीनस्थ कानून का एक अच्छा टुकड़ा नहीं कहा जा सकता है जो बड़ी संख्या में लाभार्थियों को प्रभावित करता है । इसके अलावा, अधीनस्थ विधान समिति के पास समय है और फिर जोर दिया गया है कि जहां तक संभव हो, नियमों के पूर्वव्यापी आवेदन से बचा जाना चाहिए और यदि इसे लागू करना है तो यह सुनिश्चित किया जाना चाहिए कि इसका प्रतिकूल प्रभाव न हो किसी के हितों और ऐसे सभी मामलों में, इस संबंध में जारी करने वाले प्राधिकरण द्वारा प्रमाणन हमेशा देना चाहिए । इस संबंध में मंत्रालय का ध्यान संसदीय मामलों के मंत्रालय में संसदीय प्रक्रियाओं के मैनुअल के अध्याय 11 पर समिति की निम्नलिखित सिफारिशों पर आमंत्रित किया जाता है (पैरा 11.7.4 (ii), संसदीय मामलों के मंत्रालय में) :- ′′ जिन मामलों में माता-पिता अधिनियम पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव देने के लिए प्रदान करता है, उन मामलों में जहां माता-पिता अधिनियम पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव देने की आवश्यकता होती है, उन कारणों और परिस्थितियों को निर्धारित करने के लिए एक व्याख्यात्मक नोट के साथ होना चाहिए, जो इस तरह के पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव देने की आवश्यकता होती है । नोट यह भी संकेत देना चाहिए कि किसी के हितों को पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव देने से प्रभावित नहीं होगा । मामले में जहां माता-पिता अधिनियम पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव देने के लिए प्रदान नहीं करता है, लेकिन पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव अपरिहार्य परिस्थितियों के कारण दिया जाता है, उसे कानूनी मंजूरी के साथ कपड़े पहनने के लिए पूर्व कार्रवाई की जानी चाहिए ′′ भले ही संसद के अधिनियम में पूर्वव्यापी प्रभाव का प्रावधान निहित हो, समिति का मानना है कि संसद का इरादा कभी नहीं हो सकता है कि ऐसे प्रतिनिधिमंडल को किसी भी प्रकार के अनुचित तरीके से प्रयोग किया जाएगा और हितों को पूर्वाग्रह रूप से प्रभावित करके सार्वजनिक नीति का विरोध किया जाएगा योजना के बड़ी संख्या में सदस्य । इसके अलावा, इस तरह के कमजोर समूह को पेंशन का नुकसान करने के लिए अग्रणी कदम ′′ सबका साथ सबका विकास ′′ के खिलाफ मिलिट करता है ।

1.19. समिति यह चेतावनी देना चाहती है कि कर्मचारी पेंशन योजना एक सामाजिक सुरक्षा योजना है और यह हमेशा एक लोकप्रिय सरकार का प्रयास होना चाहिए कि वह कठिनाई पैदा करने के बजाय समाज के कल्याण की और बेहतरी के लिए अधीनस्थ कानून की शक्ति का न्यायिक रूप से प्रयोग करें और आर्थिक निराशा । समिति ने उपर्युक्त संशोधन को खोज लिया जिसमें ग्राहकों की पेंशन को तेजी से कम करने का प्रभाव पूरी तरह अस्वीकार्य है । पेंशन की गणना के लिए 12 महीने से 60 महीने की अत्यंत अनुचित अवधि में सरकार द्वारा समिति के सामने कोई औचित्य नहीं रखा गया है । समिति को सरकार की याचिका से बिल्कुल भी विश्वास नहीं है कि ऐसा ही एक्ट्यूअरियल मूल्यांकन रिपोर्ट के आधार पर किया गया है । समिति का मानना है कि पेंशन की गणना के लिए 12 महीने की अवधि तय करते समय सरकार ने वित्तीय निहितार्थों और सामाजिक उद्देश्यों सहित सभी पेशेवरों और विपक्ष को ध्यान में रखा होगा । इसके अलावा, यह वास्तविक मूल्यांकन की विश्वसनीयता के बारे में सवाल उठाता है जो नुकसान की गणना करने में असमर्थ थे । इसके अलावा, मंत्रालय समिति के सामने वित्तीय बाधाओं का सामना करने या उनकी क्वांटम आदि के बारे में कोई जानकारी रखने में विफल रहा है । ताकि मानदंडों में इस तरह के एक घातक परिवर्तन को न्यायसंगत ठहराया जा सके जिससे भारी वित्तीय हानि और इरादे वाले समूहों के लिए कठिनाई हो ।

1.20 उपरोक्त पृष्ठभूमि में, समिति ने दृढ़ता से सिफारिश की है कि 12 महीने की औसत वेतन के आधार पर पेंशन राशि की गणना करने के पूर्व मानदंड को कम से कम ऐसे सभी कर्मचारियों के मामले में बहाल किया जाना चाहिए जो कर्मचारी पेंशन योजना के सदस्य बने अधिसूचना से पहले दिनांक 22-08-2014 से प्रभावी । पेंशन की गणना और कटौती के लिए 60 महीने का मानदंड रुपये से अधिक के अतिरिक्त 1.16 % की कटौती के लिए । 15000 /-, केवल उन कर्मचारियों पर लागू किया जा सकता है जो अधिसूचना के बाद 1.9.2014 से प्रभावी अधिसूचना के बाद कर्मचारी पेंशन योजना में शामिल हुए थे, क्योंकि समिति ने इस तरह के कठोर परिवर्तन के लिए थोड़ा औचित्य प्राप्त किया था मानदंड में ।

समिति इस रिपोर्ट की प्रस्तुति की तारीख के 3 महीने के भीतर इस संबंध में की गई कार्रवाई का पता लगाना चाहती है ।

अध्यक्ष, अधीनस्थ विधान पर समिति

Read More

एक बहुत अच्छा निर्णय पहले पेंशन को संशोधित किया था, लेकिन फिर यू-टर्न लिया

27.7.2020

एक बहुत अच्छा निर्णय साझा कर रहा हूं जिसमें उन्होंने पहले पेंशन को संशोधित किया था, लेकिन फिर यू-टर्न लिया और याचिकाकर्ता को नोटिस जारी किया कि वह सर्कुलर डीटी के देखते हुए उच्च पेंशन के हकदार नहीं था । 22.8.2014.

माननीय न्यायालय ने यह भी कहा कि केरल उच्च न्यायालय और दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट के तथ्य और आदेश की पूरी तरह से ले जाना जिसकी समीक्षा याचिका तय होने तक सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा पुष्टि की गई है, कानून सुप्रीम द्वारा घोषित किया गया है दिनांक 22.08.2014 को गोलाकार अदालत में रखा गया है । वह मैदान को अलग कर देगा । आदेश आगे कहता है कि इस मामले के तथ्यों और स्थिति में, जब तक गुणों पर याचिका का फैसला नहीं किया जाता, तब तक यह निर्देश दिया जाता है कि याचिकाकर्ता को मासिक पेंशन का हकदार होगा जो पहले उसे 17,874 रुपये का भुगतान किया जा रहा था /-, जो इस रिट याचिका के अंतिम निर्णय के अधीन होगा ।

कृपया आदेश संरक्षित करें और इसी तरह के मामलों में पेंशनरों का बचाव करने वाले अधिवक्ताओं को इसकी प्रति प्रदान करें

छत्तीसगढ़ उच्च न्यायालय, बिलासपुर

ऑर्डर शीट

WPS नं. 2020 में से 2598

एन. के. दुबे बनाम कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि संगठन और अन्य

09/07/2020

श्री श्री श्री नीरज चौबे, याचिकाकर्ता के लिए परामर्शदाता ।

श्री श्री श्री सुनील पिल्लई, उत्तरदाता संख्या 1. के लिए परामर्शदाता

श्री पी. आर. पाटंकर, प्रतिवादी संख्या के लिए परामर्शदाता 2.

सुना है

वर्तमान रिट याचिका में याचिकाकर्ता का विवाद यह है कि याचिकाकर्ता को शुरू में रुपये की राशि का भुगतान किया गया था । 2,215 /- प्रति माह । इसके बाद, बढ़ी हुई पेंशन की मांग की गई और याचिकाकर्ता ने याचिकाकर्ता द्वारा याचिकाकर्ता द्वारा ऐसे जमा किए जाने पर 5,24,487 रुपये की राशि जमा की गई, याचिकाकर्ता को देय पेंशन राशि रु. में संशोधित कर दी गई । 17,874 /- (अनुलग्नक पी / 7). उसके बाद, प्रतिवादी संख्या द्वारा 04.03.2020 को रिकवरी नोटिस जारी किया गया । 2 जिससे यह विवाद हुआ है कि याचिकाकर्ता को रुपये की उच्च पेंशन का भुगतान किया गया था । 3,28,265 /- और उसके बाद, गोलाकार दिनांक 22.08.2014 (अनुलग्नक पी / 12) के आधार पर यह विवाद किया गया है कि याचिकाकर्ता को उच्च पेंशन प्राप्त करने का अधिकार नहीं है ।

याचिकाकर्ता के लिए सीखा वकील ने कहा कि कहा गया सर्कुलर, जिस पर रिलायंस रखा जाता है, केरल हाईकोर्ट के साथ-साथ दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने भी अलग कर दिया है और आदेश एसएलपी नं में अपील का विषय था । 8658-5659/2019 सुप्रीम कोर्ट से पहले जो 01.04.2019. को बर्खास्त किया गया था । यह कहा जाता है कि यह तथ्य उत्तरदाताओं के ज्ञान में भी है जो अनुलग्नक पी / 11. से स्पष्ट होगा । आगे प्रस्तुत किया जाता है कि अनुलग्नक पी / पास करते समय 1, मामले के फैसले का संदर्भ दिया गया है और साथ ही सुप्रीम कोर्ट के सामने लंबित समीक्षा याचिका दायर की गई है । इसलिए, उच्च पेंशन के भुगतान के लिए जो पहले याचिकाकर्ता को भुगतान किया जा रहा था के लिए उत्तरदाता संख्या 1 को दिशा जारी की जा सकती है ।

प्रतिवादी संख्या के लिए सीखा परामर्शदाता उत्तर फाइल करने के लिए कुछ समय के लिए 1 प्रार्थनाएं । उन्होंने यह भी कहा कि याचिकाकर्ता प्रतिवादी संख्या 1 के कर्मचारी नहीं थे क्योंकि वह डेयरी फेडरेशन यानी प्रतिवादी संख्या के कर्मचारी हैं । 3. वह आगे प्रस्तुत करेगा कि पेंशन के भुगतान के संबंध में स्थिति कायम रखा जा सकता है ।

प्रतिवादी संख्या को जारी करने की सूचना 3 प्रक्रिया शुल्क के भुगतान पर, नियमों के अनुसार

केरल हाईकोर्ट के आदेश के साथ ही सुप्रीम कोर्ट के संदर्भ में दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने एयरऑनलाइन 2019 दिल्ली 768 में रिपोर्ट किए गए निर्णय के साथ ही सुप्रीम कोर्ट के संदर्भ में भी पेश किया गया, ऐसा लगता है कि याचिकाकर्ता को एक निश्चित जमा करने का निर्देश दिया गया था अधिक पेंशन पाने के लिए राशि और जमा करने के बाद रु. 5,24,487 /-, उनकी मासिक पेंशन को रु. में संशोधित किया गया था । 17,874 /-. दस्तावेज प्राइमा फेसिए से पता चलता है कि कहा गया पेंशन याचिकाकर्ता को भुगतान किया जा रहा था और अचानक इनकार दिनांक 17.02.2020 (अनुलग्नक पी / 1) द्वारा प्रभावित किया गया है । इसलिए, पर ऐसा लगता है कि याचिकाकर्ता को कुछ राशि का भुगतान करने का वादा किया जा रहा है, उसने रुपये की राशि जमा कर दी है । 5,24,487 /- जो दिनांक 29.05.2018 पत्र से स्पष्ट है और उसके बाद उसे उच्च पेंशन का लाभ दिया जा रहा है । गोलाकार, प्रथम फेसिए जिस पर प्रतिवादी संख्या 1 ने रिलायंस को केरल हाईकोर्ट के साथ-साथ दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने अलग कर दिया है और सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने भी पुष्टि की है । इन तथ्यात्मक पृष्ठभूमि को देखते हुए, उत्तरदाता द्वारा प्रार्थना की गई स्थिति से याचिकाकर्ता की भुखमरी होगी और ऐसी स्थिति को प्रबल होने की अनुमति नहीं दी जा सकती क्योंकि कीमत 2,215 /- रुपये की राशि बहुत कम होगी सूचकांक जो आज समाज में प्रचलित है । आदेश (अनुलग्नक पी / 1) भी याचिकाकर्ता को सुनने का अवसर दिए बिना पारित किया गया है हालांकि इसका सिविल परिणाम है ।

केरल हाईकोर्ट और दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट के तथ्य और आदेश को पूरा करते हुए जो सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा समीक्षा याचिका तय होने तक पुष्टि की गई है, सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा घोषित कानून जिसमें दिनांक 22.08.2014 को गोलाकार दिनांक 22.08.2014 को घोषित किया गया है । सेट हो गया है-अलग मैदान को पकड़ लेंगे ।

इस मामले के तथ्यों और स्थिति में, जब तक गुणों पर याचिका का फैसला नहीं किया जाता, तब तक यह निर्देश दिया जाता है कि याचिकाकर्ता को मासिक पेंशन का हकदार होगा जो पहले उसे रुपये का भुगतान किया जा रहा था । 17,874 /-, जो इस रिट याचिका के अंतिम निर्णय के अधीन होगा ।

चार सप्ताह बाद मामला सूचीबद्ध करें ।

Read More

Very Good Judgment by High Court Chhattisgar,Stay on the action of EPFO

High Court : A very good judgment granting STAY on the action of EPFO wherein they had first revised the pension but then took U-turn and issued a notice to the petitioner that he was not entitled for higher pension in view of Circular dt. 22.8.2014.

Hon’ble Court also stated that Taking into the entirety of the fact and the order of the Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court which appears to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court till the review petition is decided, the law as declared by the Supreme court whereby the circular dated 22.08.2014 has been set-aside would hold the field. The order further says that in the facts and situation of this case, till the petition is adjudicated on merits, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for the monthly pension which was earlier being paid to him of Rs. 17,874/-, which would be subject to the final adjudication of this writ petition.

Please preserve the order and provide a its copy to the advocates defending pensioners in similar cases.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Order Sheet

WPS No. 2598 of 2020

N. K. Dubey Versus Employees Provident Fund Organization and Others

09/07/2020

Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunil Pillai, Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

Mr. P.R. Patankar, Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

Heard

The contention of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was initially paid pension of an amount of Rs. 2,215/- per month. Subsequently, demands were made for enhanced pension and the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,24,487/-. Consequent upon such deposit by the petitioner, the pension amount payable to the petitioner was revised to Rs. 17,874/- (Annexure P/7). Thereafter, a recovery notice was issued on 04.03.2020 by the respondent No. 2 whereby it has been contended that the petitioner was paid higher pension of Rs. 3,28,265/- and thereafter, on the basis of circular dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P/12) it has been contended that the petitioner is not entitled to get the higher pension.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said circular, on which the reliance is placed, has been set-aside by the Kerala High Court as well as Delhi High Court and the order was subject of appeal in SLP No. 8658-5659/2019 before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 01.04.2019. It is stated that this fact is also in the knowledge of the respondents which would be evident from Annexure P/11. It is further submitted that while passing the Annexure P/1, the reference has been made of the decision of the case along with the fact that the review petition has been filed which is pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the direction may be issued to the respondent No. 1 for payment of the higher pension which was being paid to the petitioner earlier.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 prays for some time to file reply. He also submits that the petitioner was not an employee of the respondent No. 1 as he is an employee of Dairy Federation i.e. respondent No. 3. He would further submit that the status quo with respect to the payment of pension may be maintained.

Issue notice to the respondent No. 3 on payment of process fee, as per rules

Perused the order of the Kerala High Court as also the reference of the Supreme Court along with the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court reported in AIROnline 2019 Delhi 768, prima facie it appears that the petitioner was directed to deposit a certain amount to get the higher pension and after having deposited Rs. 5,24,487/-, his monthly pension was revised to Rs. 17,874/-. The document prima facie shows that the said pension was being paid to the petitioner and all of a sudden the denial has been effected by an order dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure P/1). Therefore, at the outset it appears that the petitioner being promised to pay certain amount had deposited an amount of Rs. 5,24,487/- which is evident from the letter dated 29.05.2018 and thereafter the benefit of higher pension was being given to him. The circular, prima facie on which the respondent No. 1 has placed reliance has been set-aside by the Kerala High Court as well as Delhi High Court and is also affirmed by the Supreme Court. In view of these factual backgrounds, the status quo as prayed by respondent would lead to starvation of the petitioner and such situation cannot be allowed to prevail as the amount of Rs. 2,215/- would be too meager in view of the price index which is prevailing today in society. The order (Annexure P/1) also appears to have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner though it has a civil consequence.

Taking into the entirety of the fact and the order of the Kerala High Court and Delhi High Court which appears to have been affirmed by the Supreme Court till the review petition is decided, the law as declared by the Supreme court whereby the circular dated 22.08.2014 has been set-aside would hold the field.

In the facts and situation of this case, till the petition is adjudicated on merits, it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for the monthly pension which was earlier being paid to him of Rs. 17,874/-, which would be subject to the final adjudication of this writ petition.

List the matter after four weeks.

Read More

Review Petition filed by EPFO,the matter is to be listed before the Regular Bench in Court No. 1

All these INTERLINKED cases are likely to be listed for hearing ONLY after fixation of dates for the aforesaid Review Petition and SLP as all other cases have been ordered to be listed with them.

1. Review Petition filed by EPFO (Diary No. 11023 of 2019):As per Subm. Note dt. 29/31.07.2019, the matter is to be listed before the Regular Bench in Court No. 1

2. SLP (Diary No. 16281 of 2019): As per the orders dated 12.7.2019 of Hon’ble Court, SLP No. 16721-16722 of 2019 is to be listed alongwith Review Petition no. 1430-1431 of 2019 (Diary No. 16281 of 2019) filed by EPFO in OPEN COURT.

3. WP (C) 832 of 2019 - TATA Workers Union: As per the orders dated 12.7.2019 of Hon’ble Court, WP(C) 832 of 2019 is to be listed alongwith Review Petition no. 1430-1431 of 2019 (Diary No. 16281 of 2019) filed by EPFO.

4. Forty Two (42) WPs and Two (2) Contempt Petitions: As per the orders dated 6.2.2020, Forty Two (42) WPs and Two (2) Contempt Petitions are to be listed alongwith SLP No. 16721-16722 of 2019 (Diary No. 11023 of 2019) filed by UOI

5. One WP (Sr. No. 52) is listed for 28.2.2020 (Computer Generated)

All these INTERLINKED cases are likely to be listed for hearing ONLY after fixation of dates for the aforesaid Review Petition and SLP as all other cases have been ordered to be listed with them.

Pensioners Reaction :   1. All the cases dates are found questionable. What computers are doing Bz computers only generating dates. Politics entered inthe computers also .Nobody knows wether will dates areu uploaded or downloaded God only knows.

2. On 6-2-2020, the matter was taken up for hearing. Normally, the court use to direct registry to list the matter on the next cause list or any date as per court's convenience. However since on 6th Feb. 2020, there is no such direction for listing the matter ; meaning thereby that court has not accorded merit in these cases for early hearing. Now all cases will now be given place in cause list by Registrar as per routine and normal procedure. Apparently, there is no chance for early hearing.

3. This is the time for all the Advocates involved in EPS 85 to sit and discuss the matter to bring uniform statistics for presenting in SC , purely in the interest of their clients. Otherwise it will be very difficult to come out successfully.

4. This is the time for all the Advocates involved in EPS 85 to sit and discuss the matter to bring uniform statistics for presenting in SC , purely in the interest of their clients. Otherwise it will be very difficult to come out successfully.

Read More

Honorable Minister of State for Labor and Employment Shri Santosh Kumar Gangwar Presented all Issues Related to EPS 95 pension

Mr Pradeep ji Shrivastav, President, Uttarpradesh is reproduced below .

On July 26, 2020, under the leadership of Shri Sudhir Upadhyay, District President, Bareilly, Shri Shyam Swaroop District vice chairman and Ram Prakash District Organization Secretary,EPS 95 National Agitation Committee, Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh) met Honorable Minister of State for Labor and Employment Shri Santosh Kumar Gangwar at his residence and office in Bareilly and presented all issues associated with EPS 95 pension ahead of the Honorable Minister.

Hon. Minister listened to the delegates carefully but within the context of discussing the pension, he replied that "National President of NAC, Commander Ashok Raut ji is in contact with me and every one the correspondence and incident cycle happening during this subject is well-known to me.You all can come to Delhi anytime with Commander Saheb to debate this subject well ".

After this our delegates submitted a memorandum on behalf of the pension holders of the district to Hon.Minister, as Member of Parliament of Bareilly. All the knowledge during this context has been given to Hon.Chief of NAC, Commander Sir. Congratulations to the Bareilly team for creating the foremost effortful.

PensionersReaction: 

1.Exactly sir Since long, he's cognizant but each time he makes us disappointed. He can not help us the least bit bcoz he's no more interested despite of knowing all the facts.

2. How long and the way over and over the discussion on the identical subject are going to be held.Union Government is unwilling to fulfil the legitimate demands of EPS'95 Pensioners. If they might be sincere enough, then they'd release the upper pension on Apex court verdict. But declining that they need rather filed review petition before the apex court with the intention to foil it. Shame.

3. Last 20 years 2 government changes, are all receiving epf95pensioners memorandum and easily sitting. this can be excellent lesson for future election.

4. The central Government isn't in any respect listening/paying any attention to the legitimate demand of eps95 pensioners, who face gravel difficulties in meeting their day to day expenses in today's inflation and expensive medical treatment, which is basic requirement within the maturity.

5. Good Revolution even this present Govt not realizing difficulties of Senior Sitizens it's very against poor people employee Politicians want all benefits not others.

6. Great effort will they accept an excessive amount of time taken by this government .

7 . Good effort. Make it successful at the earliest

8. I expect one question from Mr Rawat. Mr. Gangwar it seems told the delegates that Mr rawat us up-to-date with me. Whatever issue during this subject i'll check with rawat. My straight question to rawat ask minister about Koshiyar committee report and what's the delay for implementation. what percentage years the finance ministry is required to look at the report. This two questions just he needs to ask the minister and find answer from him. Then i will be able to accept he's Sher. Simply visiting meeting taking biscuits and tea coming .no use.

Read More

Pension Fixation Case Un-Exempted Retirees Without any Court Orders

On 16.7.2020, I had shared 2 PPOs and 3 letters issued by EPFO Meerut wherein the pension of two Post 1.9.2014 retirees of un-exempted establishment has been fixed on the basis of actual/ higher salary WITHOUT ANY COURT ORDER.ou will be pleased to know that pension of another post 1.9.2014 retiree has also been fixed now on the basis of actual/higher salary. His PPO is also being shared.

He had also extended the date of receipt of pension from 58 to 60 years and as such was also entitled to enhancement of pension @4% per year.

Hearty congratulations to the concerned Post-1.9.2014 Pensioners who have received pension on the basis of higher salary without any court orders and also many accolades for the concerned persons whose serious follow-up gave good results and also for positive working of EPFO Meerut.

Pensioners Reaction : Great efforts by you yielding excellent results and thanks to the positive working of EPFO Meerut. By gods grace all retire employees get pension on the basis of higher salary without any court orders then they can lead very happy life after 60 years.

Read More

Breaking: Supreme Court summons Registry to explain why review plea filed by Vijay Mallya was not listed for 3 years

The Supreme Court has sought an evidence from its own Registry on why a review petition filed by fugitive industrialist Vijay Mallya wasn't listed for the last three years.

On May 9, 2017, the Supreme Court had directed the liquor baron to seem before it on July 10, after finding him guilty of contempt of court during a loan default case.

Mallya is an accused in a very loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving the now defunct Kingfisher Airlines. The plea within the Apex Court was filed by a consortium of banks.
However, soon after the Supreme writ of May 9, Mallya had filed a review petition.

In an order passed on June 16, the Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ashok Bhushan noted that the review was filed within the amount of limitation, but was still unlisted for 3 years.

The Bench has now caught up an evidence from the Supreme Court Registry on why the case wasn't listed during this point. it's also asked for the names of the officers involved within the process.

"We direct the Registry to clarify why the Review Petition wasn't listed before the concerned Court for last three years. The Registry to furnish all the main points including names of the officials who had addressed the file concerning the Review Petition for last three years."- Supreme Court
The Court has now given the Registry a two-week deadline to reply.

Vijay Mallya has been declared a proclaimed offender by India. The Supreme Court's intervention in May 2017 was seen as impetus for the enforcement agencies who had been trying hard to urge the liquor baron extradited to India from the uk.

Read More

Committee on Subordinate Legislation (2015-2016) 16th Lok Sabha Twelfth Report

COMMITTEE ON SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION 

(2015-2016) 

(SIXTEENTH LOK SABHA) 

TWELFTH REPORT 

Amendment to Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 

(PRESENTED TO LOK SABHA ON 10.8.2016)

LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT 

NEW DELHI 

August, 2016/Sravana, 1938 (Saka)

…………………….. Concluding Extracts……………..

1.18. The Committee also note that by amending the norms of calculating the pension of a person who has joined the pension scheme of 1995 based on 12 months average salary to 60 months average salary w.e.f. 1 September, 2014 amounts to retrospective application of the amendment to the subscribers and adversely affecting their interests. In the considered view of the Committee, such an amendment cannot be termed as a good piece of subordinate legislation which is prejudicially affecting a large number of beneficiaries. Moreover, the Committee on Subordinate Legislation have time and again emphasized that as far as possible, retrospective application of rules should be avoided and if at all it is to be implemented then it must be ensured that it does not have the effect of adversely affecting the interests of anyone and in all such cases, a certification must invariably be given by the issuing authority in this regard. In this regard, the attention of the Ministry is invited to the following recommendations of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation (Para 11.7.4 (ii), Chapter 11 of Manual of Parliamentary Procedures in the Government of India of Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs):- “ In cases where the parent Act provides for giving of retrospective effect, the rules framed thereunder should be accompanied by an explanatory note setting out therein the reasons and circumstances which necessitated the giving of such retrospective effect. The note should also indicate that the interests of no one will be prejudicially affected by giving retrospective effect. In cases where the parent Act does not provide for giving retrospective effect but retrospective effect is proposed to be given due to unavoidable circumstances, prior action should be taken to clothe it with legal sanction for the purpose” Even if a provision for retrospective effect is contained in an Act of Parliament, the Committee feel that it could never be the intention of Parliament that such delegated Legislation would be exercised in any kind of unreasonable manner and opposed to public policy by prejudicially affecting the interests of large number of subscribers of the scheme. Moreover, the step leading to loss of pension to such a vulnerable group militates against the espoused philosophy of "Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas".

1.19. The Committee wish to caution that Employees Pension Scheme is a social Security Scheme and it should always be the endeavour of a popular Government to judicially exercise the power of subordinate legislation for the further betterment of the welfare of the society instead of causing hardships and economic despair. The Committee find the above mentioned amendment which has the effect of drastically reducing the pension of the subscribers totally unacceptable. No justification has been placed before the Committee by the Government in suddenly arriving at an extremely unreasonable period of 60 months from the 12 months for calculation of pension. The Committee are not at all convinced with the plea of the Government that the same has been done on the basis of the Actuarial Valuation Report. The Committee believe that at the time when this Scheme was initially conceived, the Government must have taken into consideration all the pros and cons including the financial implications and the social objectives while fixing the period of 12 months for calculating the pension. Further, this also raises the question about the credibility of the actuarial assessment who were unable to calculate the amount of loss. Moreover, the Ministry have failed to place before the Committee any information regarding the kind of financial constraints being faced or their quantum etc. so as to justify such a deleterious change in the criteria leading to enormous financial loss and hardship to the intender groups.

The Committee would like to be apprised of the action taken in this regard within 3 months of the date of presentation of this Report. 

DILIPKUMAR MANSUKHLAL GANDHI 

Chairperson, Committee on Subordinate Legislation 

Read More

EPS 95 Pensioners latest News Today Best Wishes on behalf of 65 lakh EPS95 Pension holders

Hema Malini is an Indian actress, director, producer, dancer and politician. She made acting debut in Tamil film "Ithu Sathiyam" in 1963.She is the recipient of the fourth highest civilian award, Padma Shri, in 2000.Best Wishes on behalf of 65 lakh EPS95 Pension holders of NAC for the health of Hon. Smt. Hema Malini Ji EPS95 Pensioners started getting worried due news about the ill health of Hon. Shrimati Hema Malini Ji, MP, Mathura but in the meantime, a VDO was seen in Media , in which Hon. Smt. Hema Malini Ji herself said that she is completely healthy.

A heartfelt prayer to the "Supreme Power" for the healthy and joyous life of our NAC's well wisher, our guide and symbol of "Matru Shakti" Hon. Smt.Hema Malini Ji on behalf of 65 lakh,old aged EPS pensioners associated with our National organization, National Agitation Committee.

Hema Malini wrote a letter of remembrance to the Prime Minister on 2nd July and tried to draw his attention in this regard. In the memorandum, referring to the meeting of March 4 and the organisation's letter dated 13.5.2020, she urged the PM to provide EPS pensioners Rs 7500 pension along with dearness allowance and proper medical facilities.

As per Pensioners Comment :"You are ray of sun to the EPS95. God bless you abundantly by giving good health. Every EPS95 pensioner is indebted to you and all of us are praying for your health"

Please share this Post . Thanks

Read More

Pension Revision Important RTI Information Retirees

Dear friends, On 17.6.2020, I had shared important information as received under RTI from the 5 ROs out of 6 Regional Offices in Kerala Zone wherein Pension has been revised in r/o 2185 Pensioners. This information containing the detail of pension revision cases, list of PENDING Writ Petitions as well as list of Contempt Petitions in r/o following ROs can be seen.

EPFO Kannur had refused to provide the information on unlawful grounds and as such I had filed 1st appeal against his decision. My appeal had been accepted on 17.6.2020 but the CPIO had still not provided the information. On 7.7.2020, I filed a request/complaint against the CPIO to the FAA through email for non compliance of his orders by the CPIO and to initiate proceedings under Section 20(1) & (2) of the RTI Act. Finally, the CPIO has provided the information today.

As per the reply dt. 9.7.2020, pension of 129 such persons has been revised by EPFO Kannur. (Refer Point No. 8 of my RTI Application)

Thus the total number of such persons attaining age of 58 yrs on/after 1.9.2014 whose pension has been revised in Kerala Zone is 2314 (2185+129). Copies of all the relevant documents are being shared for the information of my pensioner friends.

Please Share this post .

Read More

Madras High Court,EPFO Counsel for SPIC presented a recap on the genesis of the case by travelling through the Provisions

Chennai : As informed earlier , the argument on EPS case continued yesterday from 2.15 pm till the top. Counsel for SPIC presented a recap on the genesis of the case by travelling through the Provisions/Sections of the Act/Schemes.

He said that when the Pension Scheme was introduced in 1995, the Fund that was available within the erstwhile Family Pension Fund was transferred to the EPS-1995 and also the Pension Scheme wasn't started from scratches. He further said that surplus amount of over Rs.3,25,000 Crore is accessible as of now within the Pension Fund contrary to the contention of EPFO that they're penny less. In the beginning Hon'ble Judge was stating that by paying a lesser amount to EPFO, the Petitioners would draw higher amount.

At this stage, advocate appearing for Ashok Leyland submitted that the Kerala tribunal has already ruled that it's for EPFO to wisely invest and meet their commitment. He read important portions of the Kerala tribunal Judgment. Sr. Counsel appearing for ONGC informed that there's no loss to EPFO because the Petitioners will deposit the quantity they'd withdrawn with interest. Counsel appearing for FCI said that when an employee in an unexempted organisation is allowed pension on actual salary and another employee in an exempted organisation and covered under the identical Act/Schemes is denied amounts to discrimination for no fault of the worker.

When Hon'ble Judge said that had the money been deposited by the workers with EPFO right from the start, they might have earned more because the rate of interest prevailed at that time of your time was very high and Trust has enjoyed the advantages, Advocates clarified that both EPFO and TRUSTS have invested the fund as per the rules issued by the Central Government/EPFO and therefore the investments by the TRUST are under the supervision/control of EPFO under the Act/Schemes.

Advocates have also clarified the subsequent points:

• The Fund can't be used either by Employer or by the Trust.
• No Distinction between the staff of Exempted and Unexempted establishments has been made within the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
• The impugned letter dated 31-05-2017 was issued with none authority since the Ministry of Labour & Employment has confirmed in an exceedingly RTI reply that it's not given any approval for issuing the letter dated 31-05-2017.
• EPFO has no authority to interpret the Judgment of the Supreme Court.
• The case is one and therefore the same for the staff of Exempted and Unexempted establishments.
• Just in case of Exempted Establishments, both the workers and employers have contributed 12% on actual salary. within the case of EPFO transfers the fund from PF Account to retirement savings account and pay pension on actual salary. within the case of employees of Exempted Establishments, the retired employees will transfer the quantity withdrawn by them with interest as notified by EPFO.
• Exemption is given on a primary condition that the advantages won't be but what has been provided.
• Exemption has been given only to take care of Provident Fund and not the Pension Fund.
• 80% of the staff (pensioners) belonging to unexempted establishments are paid pension on actual salary whereas 20% of employees (pensioners)belonging to Exempted Establishments aren't. it's against the Judgment of Supreme Court.
• Advocates made it clear that there's no closing date to exercise the choice.
• All the Petitioners and their employers contributed to Provident Fund on actual salary even before the introduction of EPS 1995

Advocates have also clarified the subsequent points:

1. The Fund can not be used either by Employer or by the Trust.
2. No Distinction between the staff of Exempted and Unexempted establishments has been made within the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. The impugned letter dated 31-05-2017 was issued with none authority since the Ministry of Labour & Employment has confirmed in a very RTI reply that it's not given any approval for issuing the letter dated 31-05-2017.
4. EPFO has no authority to interpret the Judgment of the Supreme Court.
5. Matters is one and also the same for the staff of Exempted and Unexempted establishments.

Read More

भूतपूर्व सैनिक, जो सुरक्षा एजन्सियो में कार्य कर रहे हैं व EPS 95 के सदस्य भी है

संगठन : आज 20 जुलाई 2020 को, भूतपूर्व सैनिक, जो सुरक्षा एजन्सियो में कार्य कर रहे हैं व EPS 95 के सदस्य भी है,हमारे NAC के राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष माननीय कमांडर अशोक राऊत जी से मिले व उन्हें उनकी समस्यायों का ज्ञापन सौंपा. मा. कमांडर साहब ने उनकी समस्यायों को ध्यान से सुना व संगठन की ओर से उन्हे हर संभव मदद करने का आश्वासन दिया.

ईपीएफ के लिए सैलरी की अधिकतम सीमा अभी 15,000 रुपये प्रति माह है. इसलिए ईपीएस में अधिकतम योगदान 1250 रुपये प्रतिमाह है. ईपीएस एक्ट में 1996 में हुए एक संशोधन के बाद कर्मचारी को पेंशन में योगदान बढ़ाकर सैलरी (बेसिक और डीए) का 8.33 फीसदी करने का विकल्प मिल गया.

एनएससी कर्मचारी पेंशन योजना (EPS), 95 के दायरे में आने वाले कामगारों के लिये मासिक मूल पेंशन के रूप में 7,500 रुपये के साथ इस पर महंगाई भत्ता देने, कर्मचारियों के पति/पत्नी को मुफ्त चिकित्सा सुविधा देने समेत अन्य मांग कर रहे हैं.

आप सभी ने मुझे जन्मदिन की अनेक शुभकामनाएं भेजी हैं और हमारी महिला टीम के EPS95 पेंशन धारकों के समाज के हित में किये जानेवाले कार्य की सराहना भी की है, उसके लिए मै आप सबके प्रति हृदय से कृतज्ञ हूं. आपकी सभी शुभकामनायें हमारे संगठन NAC को समर्पित हैं.

लेकिन हमारा कार्य हमारे नेता माननीय कमांडर अशोक राऊत जी, राष्ट्रीय अध्यक्ष के मार्गदर्शन में अखंडित शुरू है वही हमारी टीम के प्रेरणा स्थान हैं व साथ में आप सभी का सहयोग तथा शुभाशीष भी है यही कारण है NAC के मुख्यालय बुलडाणा का श्रृंखला अनशन पिछले 555 दिनों से अखंडित शुरू है.

हम,हमारी टीम की ओर से आप सभी को विश्वास दिलाते हैं कि मा. कमांडर के कुशल - सक्षम नेतृत्व में व आप सभी के सहयोग व शुभाशीष से हमें शीघ्र ही सफलता मिलेगी व तभी बुलढाणा का अनशन समाप्त होगा.

आप सभी को एक बार फिर बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद.

 

भाइयो में नेगेटिव बात नहीं कर रहा हूं लेकिन सरकार ,प्रोविडेंड फण्ड ऑफिस या कोर्ट कोई भी कुछ नहीं करेगा । अगर आपको याद हो तो करीब तीन साल पहले खबर थी की PF ऑफिस के पास अरबो रुपये unclaimed पड़े है जिनको PF ने मार्किट में शेयर बाजार में लगा दिया , क्या वो पैसा डूब गया ? अगर नहीं तो

हमारा पैसा हम को देने में वो क्यू कोर्ट में आपत्ति लगा रहा है ? कोई भी पेंशनर्स की इस बड़ी समस्या को गंभीरता से क्यू नहीं लेता ? ऐसा तो नहीं जो पैसा मार्किट में लगाया था वो डूब गया हो ?

या फिर और कोई बड़ा लोचा ? जरा मेरी बात 2 मिनिट सोचिये की क्यू लाखो पेंशनर्स की मांग को टाला जा रहा है ।

आज की मांग है पेंशन में बढ़ोतरी हो। आदमी को जीवन यापन करने के लिए पैसे की आवश्यकता होती है। जीवन में उसने 60 साल तक अपनी सेवाएं सरकार को दी अब यह सरकार की जिम्मेदारी बनती है यह मेहनती कर्मचारियों को आत्मनिर्भर बनाये

इस आर्टिकल पर हमें अपना राय कमेंट कर के जरूर बताये ।

दोस्तों अगर आप को ये article पसंद आया हो तो अभी हमें subscribe करे । हमें आप के Like और Comment का इंतज़ार रहेगा ।

आपका सह्रदय धन्यवाद !

Read More