BREAKING| EPF Pension Case : Supreme Court To Pronounce Verdict On EPFO Appeals Tomorrow

Update: 2022-11-03 15:46 GMT

story

The Supreme Court will pronounce the judgment tomorrow in the appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization challenging the Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi High Court judgments which had quashed the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014.A 3-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia had reserved judgment on...

Your free access to Live Law has expired

Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Subscribe Now

If you are a subscriber, Please Login

A 3-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit, Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia had reserved judgment on August 11 after 6-days of hearing. Justice Bose has authored the judgment. The judgment will be pronounced tomorrow at 10.30 AM.

In 2018, the Kerala High Court, while setting aside the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 ], allowed paying pension in proportion to the salary above the threshold limit of Rs 15,000 per month. The High Court also held that there can be no cut-off date for joining the pension scheme.

In 2019, the Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the EPFO against the Kerala High Court judgment. Later, in review sought by the EPFO and the Union Government, the dismissal of the SLP was recalled and the matter was re-opened for hearing on merits.

In August 2021, a 2-judge bench of the Supreme Court had referred the appeals to a 3-judge bench to consider the following issues:

1. Whether there would be a cut-off date under paragraph 11(3) of the Employees' Pension Scheme and

2. Whether the decision in R.C. Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2016) would be the governing principle on the basis of which all these matters must be disposed.

The main argument raised by the EPFO is that the Pension Fund and the Provident Fund are distinct and the membership in the latter will not automatically translate into a membership of the former. It was argued that Pension Scheme is intended for low-age employees and if the persons drawing salaries above the cut-off limit are allowed to draw pension as well, it will create huge imbalance within the fund. The 2014 amendments were brought to address the issue of cross-subsidization between the pension and provident funds.

The pensioners disputed the argument of financial burden raised by the EPFO. It was argued by them that the corpus fund remains intact and the payments have been made from the interest. The pensioners also disputed the argument of the EPFO that there has to be separate option exercised within the cut-off period to join the pension scheme and contended that the stand of the EPFO is contrary to the statute.

Detailed reports of the hearings of different days are given below :

EPF Pension Case : Provident Fund Members Don't Automatically Become Eligible Under EPS, EPFO Tells Supreme Court[ Day 1]

EPF Pension Case : Supreme Court Asks Centre, EPFO To Show Materials On Cross Subsidy & Financial Burden [Day 2 Hearing Report]

EPF Pension Case : 'No Deficit In Pension Fund', Pensioners Tell Supreme Court Countering EPFO Argument Of Financial Burden [Hearing Day 3]

EPF Pension Case: Employees Argue They Can't Be Asked To Contribute 1.16% Of Salaries Above Rs 15,000 [Supreme Court Hearing Day 4]

EPS Case : Pension Corpus Remains Intact, Payments Coming From Interest, EPFO Can't Raise Fund Issues - Employees To Supreme Court [Day 5 Hearing]

EPF Pension Case : Why Annual Reports Don't Reflect Potential Financial Burden? Supreme Court Asks Union, EPFO [Day 6 Hearing]

Case Title: EPFO vs Sunil Kumar and Ors

Tags:

EPF Pension

BREAKING| EPF Pension Case : Supreme Court To Pronounce Verdict On EPFO Appeals Tomorrow

Similar News

BREAKING| Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of UP Madarsa Education Act Except Its Provisions Regulating Higher Education Degrees

BREAKING| Not All Private Property Is 'Material Resource Of Community' Which State Must Equally Distribute As Per Article 39(b) : Supreme Court

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail To Former SP MLA Kishore Samrite Who Was Sentenced To 5 Yrs Imprisonment For Attacking SDM, Burning His Vehicle

'We Need Green Spaces For Our Children' : Supreme Court Rejects CIDCO Plea To Shift Sports Complex From Navi Mumbai

Absolutely Nothing Wrong In Prime Minister Visiting My Home For Private Event : CJI DY Chandrachud

Independence Of Judiciary Doesn't Mean Constantly Deciding Against Government : CJI DY Chandrachud

ED Moves Supreme Court Against Madras HC Order Restraining Probe Under PMLA Into Alleged Illegal Sand Mining

Couldn't Appoint Women Judges To Supreme Court As There Was No One Senior Enough For Elevation : CJI DY Chandrachud

Can Private Property Be Redistributed As 'Material Resources Of Community' As Per Article 39(b)?Supreme Court To Deliver Verdict Tomorrow

Supreme Court To Pronounce Judgment Tomorrow On Validity Of UP Madarsa Education Act

'Public Service Commission Must Not Resort To Falsehoods' : Supreme Court Slams KPSC's Inconsistency On LDC Post Qualification

“Even Basic Amenities Are Lacking” : Supreme Court Directs Assam Government To Provide All Facilities In Transit Camp Within One Month