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

On the fifth day of the EPF Pension case hearing (Wednesday), the pensioners told the Supreme Court that the verdict in R.C. Gupta v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, which held that there is no cut-off for opting for pension, is correct and applies to them in the present case.The argument was put forth by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan before a 3-judge bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia. The Bench was considering the appeals filed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization challenging the Kerala, Rajasthan and Delhi High Court judgments which had quashed the 2014 Amendment Scheme. In 2018, the Kerala High Court, while setting aside the Employee's Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 [2014 Amendment Scheme], allowed paying pension in proportion to the salary above the threshold limit of Rs 15,000 per month.On February 25, 2021, the division bench of Justice UU Lalit and Justice KM Joseph restrained the High Court of Kerala, Delhi and Rajasthan from initiating contempt proceedings against the Central Government and the EPFO over the non-implementation of the HC verdicts. 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.Here are key aspects discussed yesterday: RC GuptaThe Kerala High Court, while setting aside the 2014 amendments by its 2018 judgment, had declared that all the employees shall be entitled to exercise the option stipulated by paragraph 26 of the EPF Scheme without being restricted in doing so by the insistence on a date.This was rebutted by the EPFO as well as the Union of India stating that exercising the option under paragraph 26 of the EPF cannot be retrospective. And, the respondents, i.e. counsel appearing for various pensioners argued otherwise. Sankaranarayan too, made a similar argument. He also argued that the Provident Fund and Pension of employees flow from the same Fund and has similar characteristics. And how the Fund only had to be moved from A to B. Hearing this, the Bench then observed, "Justice Gogoi's observation in RC Gupta is, from one fund to the other makes no difference. Therefore, does it really make a difference or is it something which can be categorized as no difference? ……The Distinction with the investments the fund was required to make which is discernible from 52 and 26 is not qualitatively different. Its the same fund, same securities, same kind of application, same interest bearing securities. you are not guided by different set of impact theory. In light of Gogoi's observation...someone was denied to make the crossover from A to B. That denial….the burden of the song is that there is a large number of people in that category where there is no impact at all. Therefore, where is the question of taking a different view". Giving a bit of background with regard to the RC Gupta case, the court said,"First comes RC Gupta. That is relied upon by various courts. When the matter from Kerala HC comes before this court, three judges bench dismissed the SLP. Therefore, they affirmed the principles in RC Gupta. Then another avatar. Court says to list the review petition along with the other matters. There is no pronouncement. So, the Matter has to be tested on: Is this impact going to be of drastic nature that you must deny the benefit to the employees? You are coming to that level saying that the impact is no negligible that others must also be given the same benefit."In response, the senior advocate said, "This factual aspect is only consequential. As far as we are concerned, the verdict in RC Gupta is correct and applies also to us.""We were given to understand that somebody who had never applied now gets a chance. Therefore, everything becomes retrospective. We would like to know how many employees are going to walk away with a chance, who had not exercised any option earlier. How many are these exempted categories of employees who may get affected as a result of this. These two pointers also", the Court further queried. "If RC Gupta holds the field, RC Gupta ought to be followed not only because its legally correct but because it has been implemented", Option Aspect Further, he argued that if RC Gupta isn't considered, then option that pensioners would have to exercise is only at one stage. Highlighting this, he said,"Independent of RC Gupta, if we don't take shelter under RC Gupta, the option we have to exercise under the statute is only at one stage, that is as far as the Provident Fund is concerned. Everything else has to be read in the wake of that which includes 11 (3), proviso to 11 (4) [of the Amendment Scheme]"."So, what you say is option only at one stage?" the...

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

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rintu Mariam Biju

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

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rintu Mariam Biju

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers