EPFO Ordered to Compensate Pension Subscribers for Delayed Revision
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has mandated the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) in Chandigarh to compensate three subscribers with Rs 50,000 each for failing to revise their pensions without valid reasons. The commission, consisting of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri, president, and member Rajesh K Arya, has further instructed the EPFO to revise and release the pension amounts, adjusting the previously paid Provident Fund (PF) amounts, within 45 days. Additionally, the commission prohibited the EPFO from demanding or charging any interest on the amounts to be adjusted during the pension revision process.
The complaint was lodged by Krishan Murari and two other employees of the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited in Chandigarh. They argued that they were covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952. Initially, the Act did not include a pension scheme; however, an amendment introduced in 1995 established provisions for employee pensions, stipulating that the pension fund should consist of a deposit of 8.33% of the employer’s contribution to the PF corpus.
According to paragraph 11 of the scheme, pensionable salary determination was defined, which initially set the maximum pensionable salary at Rs 5,000 and later increased it to Rs 6,500. The subscribers asserted that the pensionable salary limit was raised to Rs 15,000 through a notification dated August 22, 2014, which was effective from September 1, 2014. When they approached the Provident Fund Commissioner to demand a revised pension, their requests were denied, citing a cut-off date for opting into the revised pension scheme.
Since 2017-18, the complainants have persistently requested the EPFO to adjust their pensions in alignment with the revised amendment in the Pension Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. However, the EPFO has consistently delayed the matter on various grounds. Citing negligence, deficient service delivery, and unfair trade practices, the complainants decided to file a complaint against the EPFO.
In response, the EPFO raised objections concerning the wage details submitted by the employer and assured that necessary directions for further action were issued. They stated that once a reply is received, the cases would be processed accordingly.
After considering the arguments, the commission reiterated its directive to the EPFO, prohibiting the demand for any interest on the adjusted amounts during the pension revision. Furthermore, the commission ordered the EPFO to pay interest at a rate of 12% to each complainant from the expiration of 30 days following their applications, as stated in Section 17-A of the Employees Pension Scheme of 1952. The commission also mandated the organization to pay each complainant Rs 50,000 for the mental agony and harassment endured, along with an additional Rs 35,000 to cover litigation costs.
