Eps 95 pension news latest today

Eps 95 pension news latest today:

JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE (JAC) OF EPS’95 PENSIONERS’ REWAs OF A.P & TELANGANA STATES; HYDERABAD.

‘OUR AIM IS TO SECURE DIGNITY OF LIFE TO EPS 95 PENSIONERS’

MINUTES OF MEETING OF EPS’95 JAC AP & TS; HYDERABAD

The Meeting of Joint Action Committee of EPS ‘95 Pensioners’ REWAS of AP & TS, Hyderabad, commenced as per schedule on 12th November 2022, at 2.30 P.M. in ACBERWA Office, Narayana Guda, Hyderabad. The following Representatives from Associated member REWAs attended:

Sl No. Representative’s Name
(Sarva Sri) Post held in REWA Name of the
REWA Cadre in which he
is retired
1 Siva Oddenna Secretary/ Convener
JAC NTPC REWA, Hyd G.M
2 G Narayana Gupta Vice President / Chief
Advisor JAC FCI REWA, Hyd Sr. Manager
Accounts
3 K. Gopalkishan Rao Gen. Secretary /
Co-convener JAC ACBREWA, Hyd AGM
4 Dr S Ramesh President “ DGM TSCAB
5 G Laxminaryana Vice President “ AGM APCOB
6 P Amarnath Finance Secretary “ AGM APCOB
7 T Damodar Reddy M C Member “ AGM TSCAB
8 K S Jayasimha M C Member “ DGM TSCAB
9 S Venkateswara Rao Vice President “ Technical Officer
and many more retired officers. All names can be seen if you download the pdf file, of which the link is given at the end.

The meeting was presided over by Mr. Siva Oddenna, Convener. In the beginning, he briefed about the important features relating to the Judgment passed while disposing of the WP No: 1134/18 filed through the NCR, by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. Participating members were invited to present their views with regard to the said verdict.

The opinions/interpretations/inputs, which emerged during our brainstorming session/meeting; after a deep study of the recent SCI judgment and in the perception of the sub-paras of the operating part of the verdict i.e para 44, by the speakers are given here under:

i)GSR 609(E) dt. 22.08.2014, amending EPS ‘95, declared legal and valid
ii)GSR 609(E) shall apply to employees of exempted and un-exempted establishments both
iii)Applies to employees who continued to be in service as on 01.09.2014 and had already exercised the option under EPS para 11(3). Such employees will now be guided by para 11(4)
iv)This para too applies to members of the scheme who continued to be in service as on 01.09.2014 but did not exercise the option under para 11(3) and would now be entitled to exercise the option under para 11(4) of the scheme
v)Applies to the employees who had retired (at the age of 58yrs) before 01.09.2014. Upon exercising the option, under para 11(3) of the scheme, they shall be covered by the provisions of para 11(3) as it stood prior to the 2014 Amendment i.e. Justice RC Gupta’s verdict of 2016, needs clarificatory guidelines from CPFO, etc in pursuant of directions contained in the above paragraph of the present verdict.

vii) Applies to members who continued to be in service as on 01.09.2014 and will be governed by an additional contribution of 1.16% for the portion of salary beyond Rs 15,000 by govt. or from fund kitty

viii) There would be no alteration in the existing formula of calculation of pensionable salary.

ix) (a)This too applies to members who continued their service as on 01.09.2014. Arriving at Pensionable Salary by computing an average of 60 months’ salary before retirement from service has been held valid.

(b)Fund authorities shall implement the directives contained in the RCG judgment within a period of eight weeks.

x) Contempt petition filed by HPTDC pensioners has been disposed of in the above terms

From the views cited above at serial numbers (v) (vi) & (ix a, b) only of present verdict, relates to the Pre 01.09.2014 retirees and clause 44(V) states that those who retired prior to 1.9.2014 are not entitled for any benefit of this judgment. The other items under serial Numbers relates to upholding of GSR 609 Amendment to EPS’95 Scheme, dated 12.08.2014, pertain to the employees on the role as on 01.09.2014 and post retirees /continuing in the service and have to opt under section 11 (4) of the Amended Scheme.

In view of this much more hue and cry, as followed is continued from among the pre 1.9.2014 retirees, where the required clarity about the awaited benefit is missing, as per this verdict.

A. The opinions with regards employees retired prior to 1st September 2014 are as follows: –

I) Opinion:

a. The contention of verdict …. “The employees who had retired prior to 1st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre-amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.”

1) If a member has not entered the eligible service prescribed in paragraph 10 on the date of exit or on attaining 58 years of age, whichever is earlier, he/she shall be entitled to a ‘withdrawal benefit’ as laid down in Table D or may opt to enter the ‘scheme certificate’ provided on the date he/she has not attained the 58 years of age:”

b. Above only sub-para of the judgment haunting us needs to be read along with EPS’ scheme Para 14 as: “14. Benefits on Leaving Service before being eligible for Monthly Members Pension:

c. While 44 (Vi) states that the employees who have retired prior to 1.9.2014 upon exercising option under paragraph 11(3) of the 1995 scheme shall be covered by the provisions of 11(3) of the pension scheme as it stood before 1.9.2014.

d. It appears for most of the pre-2014 retirees, the judgment has closed the doors for opting for salary on the actual salary drawn. There is very little chance of any positive interpretation from EPFO. It is expected that a fresh circular would be issued by EPFO combining the circular of 23.03.2017 and the instructions given in the current verdict.

All may keep interpreting in their own way, but expecting that EPFO will heartily welcome us to avail the benefits is a far cry. If they interpret the verdict differently and against our understanding, under the circumstances what is our next course of action? Wait or proceed and if proceed in what manner? Since R C Gupta’s case judgment being upheld repeatedly substantiated the interpretation as per the above posting. And the period of eight weeks is for implementing the R C Gupta judgment and not for issuing procedures to claim! Keeping in view different opinions cast yet as:

v In view of this all should file a review petition with a request for a hearing in open court. If the review petition is dismissed, we can still file a curative petition which is presided by a larger bench. Since two months’ time is stipulated, EPFO can’t dodge the judgment.

v If we lose this review notice period and wait for EPFO, and if they go against our interest, then we need to file a fresh WP, regroup ourselves with new heat and wait

for another 5/7 years. Interpretation of EPFO may come very late and maybe we may not be left with any time to file a review within the time allowed and may be forced to seek condonation of delay. Therefore we need to decide whether to file a review for the removal of ambiguity of para 44(v) and upholding of RC Gupta’s judgment.

v There is no need for a curative or any other form of petition and hence 30 days timeline has no meaning. Might go for a review petition instead of losing the 30 days’ time. If EPFO decides favorably, withdrawing the petition should not be a problem.

II)) Opinions:

i. That some interpretations of verdict suggested that, the Supreme Court verdict dated 04.11.2022 also directs that pre-September 2014 retirees are eligible for pension at full salary as per verdict in R C Gupta case:

ii. Further the Current Supreme Court verdict says that exempted and non-exempted organizations hold same status. Hence the circular of 31.05.2017 is invalid.

iii. Interpretation, under para 44(v) falls in line with paras 41-44 and there remains nil contradiction/controversies. It honors RP Gupta’s judgment in Toto. We will talk to Advocates about your concerns. No advanced opinion please to hurt sentiments.

iv. It seems challenging judgment dated 4.11.2022 is risky in the sense that EPFO will get one impossible opportunity to prove its earlier prayers. Judgment cannot be said to be not in favor of employees so it is difficult to prove the cause of action against the judgment. This is my opinion as a sufferer of the judgment, in view of this it was advised as:

“Please ensure no modifications or reviews are filed. If rejected, all of you are finished. Best to wait for EPFO to reject on a tenuous reading and then challenge that.”

Therefore, jumping the gun in post-haste may be detrimental to our interest. Let us keep our options open and wait for the EPFO’s circular and then decide the future course of action. We have a suggestion that all of us write to EPFO individually and stake our demand to implement R C Gupta’s judgment of 16.10.2016 and 4.11.2022 by giving reference of our earlier correspondence which was rejected or not replied by them to create pressure on them to come out circular or reply in a negative or positive approach.

This may help in case the request is refused with the type of reply which may be helpful in fighting our case if needed. Let action start at our end. Let’s wait for the circular from EPFO. If they interpret the verdict differently and against our understanding, we should challenge the same in Supreme Court. Finally, EPFO has to decide how to implement the judgment and not in a way in which some friends express themselves. It is up to EPFO what to give and what not. If we are aggrieved, the legal course shall be open to agitate in court.

III) Option:

Only the Advocates opinion is the right action for assessment. This forum cannot decide it, please. if EPFO decides favorably, the withdrawal of the Review petition is not a big issue

B) It is proposed further to request the NCR in respect of items:

i. To conduct a meeting, at the earliest possible i.e. within one week time, to come to a consensus about further action in the matter, as per advises legal experts etc. for filing of further Petition

ii. Clarifications about submission of Option forms by Pre and Post 01.9.2014 retirees.

iii. Allowing fresh member associations to join in further petition if filed.

iv. Whether all member Associations of NCR / JACs to request EPFO directly to initiate required action to implement Honourable Supreme Court of India verdicts issued recently on 04.11.2022 and also R C Gupta at the earliest.

The Meeting concluded with a note of vote of thanks to one and all, and with advice to send a copy to all Governing Council Members of NCR for necessary consideration of the decisions taken by members.

Date: 12/11/2022 (SIVA ODDENNA)

Convener

Please press the Text here to download file for the purpose of reading the entire data or to take printout of eps 95 pension news latest today