Karnataka

Mysore

CC/363/2019

Sri. M.S.Nagaraju - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Provident Fund Commissioner EPF Organization - Opp.Party(s)

Smt. S.Kamala

29 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MYSURU
No.1542 F, Anikethana Road, C and D Block, J.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagara,
Kuvempunagara, (Behind Jagadamba Petrol Bunk), Mysuru-570023
 
Complaint Case No. CC/363/2019
( Date of Filing : 05 Aug 2019 )
 
1. Sri. M.S.Nagaraju
S/o Late Siddegowda., aged about 62 years, Bandihole Village and Post K.R.Pet Taluk , Mandya District.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Provident Fund Commissioner EPF Organization
Sub Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, No-109-128, 2nd Stage Gayathripuram, Mysuru-570019.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. A. K. NAVEEN KUMARI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. LALITHA.M.K. MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Sri Maruthi Vaddar MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 29 May 2023
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER

 

 

The Supreme Court Verdict on The Employees Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014

 on November 14, 2022

On 4th November 2022, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Employees’ Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 (the “Amendment”) as valid (while reading down certain provisions) in the case of Employees Provident Fund Organization & Anr. etc. v. B. Sunil Kumar & Ors. Etc.

Among other things, validity of the Amendment was particularly challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that the requirement for an additional contribution by employees contributing on salary exceeding INR 15,000 towards the pension scheme was ultra vires the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the “EPF Act”).

Understanding the Judgment

While upholding the validity of the Amendment, the Court ruled the following:

  1. The Amendment requiring members to contribute an additional contribution at the rate of 1.16 per cent on salary exceeding INR 15,000 from and out of the contributions payable by the employees under the EPF Act is ultra vires the provisions of the EPF Act. The court opined that the EPF Act does not require payment to the pension fund by an employee. Since the EPF Act does not contemplate any contribution to be made by an employee to remain in the schemes, the Central Government cannot mandate such a stipulation under the scheme. However, the operation of this portion of the judgment has been suspended for a period of 6 months to enable to authorities to make adjustments to the scheme (if any);
  2. The members earning more than INR15,000 who have not yet exercised their option for   contribution   beyond   the   ceiling   amount may be given an additional 4 months window to do so;
  3. The altered basis for the computation of salary is valid and binding;
  4. The Amendment shall apply to the employees of the exempted establishments in the same manner as the employees of the regular establishments. The exempted establishments are those who have framed their trusts to manage the provident fund; and
  5. The employees who retired before September 1, 2014, without exercising any option will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.

Hence, the authorities have the power to make classifications for pension contributions based on salary.

 

   In view of the above decision the complainant shall

 

approach the concerned authority. Accordingly the complaint is disposed off.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. A. K. NAVEEN KUMARI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. LALITHA.M.K.]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri Maruthi Vaddar]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.