Dear SAIL Retiree,
I keep getting queries from SAIL Retirees, living in different parts of the country, regarding money collection to fight court case for EPS-95 related issues. And whether it is patronised by FORSE or whether FORSE is a party to such a move? The clarification is as follows:
As per decision taken by FORSE Apex Council at Salem in Sept 2017, FORSE is not a party thus far to such a move of money collection or going for a court case to get EPS 95 pension. FORSE Apex Council is meeting in Kolkata on Feb 12-13, 2018 to review the progress made, discuss various alternatives and take an appropriate decision in this regard.
My advice to each of the Retiree is to hold on till a decision is taken by FORSE Apex Council next month and circulated through these channels of communication. Retirees, in the meantime, may please provide their opinion and feedback to forsesail@gmail.com for the consideration of the Council. But please read through the following Record Note of Delhi WS of many PSUS held on 21st Jan 2018 before making suggestions
All Highlights in the following paras are mine
A brief from Sri JS Nagabhushan who attended Delhi WS on our behalf
Dear Sharmaji
Your observations & queries have been formally & informally discussed in the workshop. The following is the outcome of discussion.
2. If any fresh case has to be filed we have to try only in SC not in HC.
4. The cost will depend upon the Advocate & no of petitioners involved. No clarity about the cost.
5. Now Delhi based Task Force has been created under the leadership of Kohliji, Ashok Rao & NK Sharma(convener). They are approaching various Advocates & experts in this matter. Task Force's plan of action is explained in the Record Note. I don't want to repeat again.
5. We could not collect the feed back on the experience of court case as no petitioners have attended the WS.
7. Time frame of the final judgement of the SC can't be predicted.
8. For the time being the Task Force is not thinking of collecting any court fees. We have to wait till the Judgement of Kerala High Court. They are thinking of calling another meeting in large scale before taking any final decision.
I think all the points you have mentioned are covered. If anything is left out pl inform.
With kind regards
JS Nagabhushan
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Date 28 January 2018
Record Notes of EPS95 Workshop held at Delhi on 21
Jan. 2018
Total of 110 participants, serving as well as
retired, from various sectors and different part of country, in a
representative status of various Registered and Unregistered associations and
some as individuals participated in the workshop. List attached and marked Annexure
I
Inauguration:
Sh K Ashok Rao, Co-convener of the workshop
(and Chief Patron NCOA ) welcomed the participants both to the venue of the
workshop and the workshop. In his welcome address Shri Rao made the following
points:
1. This workshop was
motivated by the fact that there was little or no coordination between equally
placed persons fighting for the same cause. The response to the meeting was
very encouraging and every effort would be made to ensure coordination,
communication and cooperation. He felt that this could be achieved without
creating yet another formal organisation.
2. That the Creation
of exempt category was arbitrary. The sanction order for disbursement of
pension to a pensioner is executed directly by the EPFO with no reference
whatsoever to his/her erstwhile employer. How then, can an “umbilical cord” be
introduced in the matter of revision of the sanction order? In any case, based
on various court orders, pensioners, from some, “exempt” category
establishments for Provident Fund, have already received revised pension. Any
circular that debars similarly situated persons is quite obviously violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. In view of the latest order of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court it was futile to agitate the issues in any court of
law anywhere in India. There was no choice but to await the Judgement of
the Kerala High Court and respond to the follow up action that is taken by EPFO
in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. The co-convenors of
the workshop had met the employee representative members of the CBT. They were
well informed about all the issues. They had rejected the claim of
non-viability of the pension scheme due to the inclusion of pensioners from the
exempt category establishments. They have demanded that EPFO establish the
claim with facts and figures.
Shri Rao introduced the agenda. The house
unanimously adopted the agenda
Power point Presentation :
Due to delay in arrival of Sarva/sh. Bairwa
(Retd RPFC) and Neeraj Bhargava, Shri N K Sharma made the presentation1 that
covered all aspects of issues being discussed at the workshop.
1 The presentation was prepared by Shri Neeraj
Bhargava of National Engg Industries, Jaipur with inputs from Sh P
Chandrasekharan (NTPC-Chennai) and vetted by Sh Parveen Kohli and Sh Bairwa.
The salient points of the presentation were:
• EPFO has been
changing their stand regularly so as to deny the pension on full salary to
employees belonging to exempt category PF trusts, which are nothing but
extension counters of PF trusts under EPFO as per act.
• That there is no
reason for the Pension Fund to financially collapse, if the benefit is accorded
to all employees in spirit of Apex court judgements. The claim of the financial
non-viability of pension scheme if the beneficiaries from the exempt category
were included was not substantiated with facts and figures.
• The GSRs are illegal
as the same have not been ratified by Parliament as per the provisions of Act.
• That the EPS95 was
designed to accumulate 8.33% of employer PF share and 1.16% from Govt Support
so as to make available 9.49% for the pension scheme probably on lines of Govt
Pension Scheme. Whilst pension for the Government employees provides for
regular revision and linkage to DA as well but in case of EPS95, commutation
and return of Equity has been withdrawn while there is no provision for DA as
well.
• The number of
employees belonging to Exempted organisations is negligible (around 5 %) as
compared to others.
• That the fund is
reporting regular increase in corpus and interest earnings over the past
period.
• The actuarial
valuation carried out in the past are devoid of real/actual data as required to
carry out the valuation, even the basic input data relating to age/DOB and
other demographic profiles are not available with EPFO for carrying out
meaningful actuarial valuations. EPFO must establish credible evidence of
non-viability of scheme based on real data.
• There is no record
of Govt Subsidies to meet the provisions of Min Basic Pensions as declared by
GOI.
• The payout is likely
to be reduced by linkage of AADHAR to PPO.
Legal Aspects Q&A session
Shri Vasudevan Advocate On Record, Supreme
Court :
1. Detailed the legal
issues involved in the matter of EPS 95 and the cases filed in various courts.
2. Payment of differential only and
also the payment of interest on arrears should also be prayed if EPFO
seeks to charge up-to date Interest on contributions, post the date of
retirement
3. Discussed in detail
various scenarios that might emerge after Kerala High Court judgement. He opined that various options will
be available to become a party in Apex court.
4. That all other
issues also need to be covered in the relevant case(s) that might have to be
filed, post SC directions relating to further proceedings in Transfer Petition.
5. That issues arising
out of GSRs as well as denial of Enhanced full salary pension to post Sept 14
retirees in Exempted as well as Unexempted organisations need to be addressed.
6. Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme
court will be applicable to one and all.
During the course of
deliberations, it emerged that EPFO has not even extended the benefit to ITI
Bangalore despite court orders of the Karnataka High Court in the ITI case. It
was also shared that in a similar case of IL Kota a review petition was filed and
the same has now been referred to in TP. Further, a view emerged that existing
serving employees (exempt and un exempt), in consultation with their employers,
should explore the possibility for the extension of EPS95 benefits on full
salary.
EPS95 related Q&A
Shri Bairwa made the following points:
1. EPFO is not right
in taking a position to discriminate employees as far as EPS95 coverage for
pension is concerned.
2. The category of
exempt establishments was entirely incorrect. Even in the matter of Provident
fund administration the exempt category did not have any discretionary powers
and/ or autonomy. In effect they are merely extension counters of the EPFO.
3. The stand of EPFO
regarding inability to do account adjustments was not correct. He cited the
example of PF account being adjusted in the case of a person who switches jobs
from Exempt to unexempt or vice versa.
4. The approach of
EPFO to deny the benefit of pension on full salary to post Sept 14 retirees of
Exempt as well as unexempt organisations is malafide and as such might lead to
more litigations.
5. Besides litigation,
efforts should be made to resolve the issues bilaterally through personal
meetings with CPFC.
6. Some GSRs are not
legitimate and are detrimental to the growth of the fund.
7. As the required
data for actuarial valuation is missing in terms of quantum and quality the
derivatives cannot be presumed to be realistic and representative.
Panel Discussion
Shri Bairwa gave clarifications on the doubts
relating to EPS95 provisions. Sarva/Shri Parveen Kohli and Ashok Rao moderated
the discussion and gave the necessary clarifications on other issues. While
most of the aspects were deliberated S/Sh Prakash Shrimal, CK Paliwal, KC Kapas
, S P Jaiswal and others also reiterated the common views and expressed all
sorts of support for the action plan.
Future course of action
The future course of action was discussed and
finalized unanimously.
Litigation
1. Based on the presentation
and discussion it was obvious that no action was either warranted or possible
until the reserved Judgement was delivered by the Hob’ble High Court of Kerala,
based on that either the EPFO or the petitioners might move the Supreme Court.
Others affected could file an intervention /Writ petition.
2. In order to ensure that such
petition is admitted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the petition should be as
representative as possible. Therefore the petitioners would be one from each of
the cognate groups – public sector, private sector, banks, electricity boards etc.
Those who may have reason to feel they are not represented by such petitioners,
could, through an affidavit, declare that they adopt the petition and may be
treated as a co-petitioner. This would enable a few thousand of
organisations/gps to be represented by a single petition.
3. Decisions relating to prayer, grounds and petitioners
are best advised by the lawyers.
Non-litigation path
1. Since the
Government functionaries were not inclined to have a dialogue and seek an out
of court settlement, it was decided to demonstrate the resentment amongst lakhs
of pensioners as well as the representative character.
2. In order to achieve
1 above it was decided to hold
a dharna in front of the EPFO offices all across the country on the same day.
3. The participants of
the demonstration would submit to the EPFO office located at the place of
Dharna an identical memorandum addressed
to the Prime Minister of India.
Final decisions of the
workshop
1. Resolution attached
and marked Annexure 2 was adopted unanimously.
2. A task force was
formed of those who volunteered to be on the task force. For practical reasons
the task force was limited to those residing in the NCR.
3. The task force
would consist of : Sarva/Shri K Ashok Rao : Gurmukh Singh NTPC, Khem Singh
Abrol- NFL Panipat, S .C. Moton-STC, Satish Mehta –CADILA, K K Mehta – DSIIDC,
OMPAL SINGH- FCI; Shri N K Sharma would be the Convenor
4. The Task Force
would do the following:
a) Provide coordination
and communication with regional representatives in order to seek and forge the
cooperation of as large and diverse a number of organisations and individuals
as may be possible in order to present a representative character and status to
the Courts and the Government.
b) To analyse the
judgement of the High Court of Kerala and consequent action taken by the
petitioners/ respondent.
c) To prepare an
intervention petition.
d) To circulate the
intervention/Writ petition prepared and convene a meeting for adoption of the
petition and facilitate its filing.
All
further decisions would be taken by the meeting convened under 4 d) above.
Details of collection and expense were
presented and adopted by the meeting. Details attached and marked Annexure 3.
As the
agenda had been finished by 1645 Hrs, Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to
the organizers and the participants of the workshop.
ANNEXURE-2
Adopted Resolution
This meeting held in Delhi on the 21st January
2018, attended by those related to and affected by the Employees’ Pension Funds
1995 do hereby resolve:
1.
That they recognise that Hon’ble
Supreme Court, had through its order, established that any member who was a
part of the EPS 95 has a right to have his/ her pension revised based on giving
an option that was denied when EPS 95 was introduced and or at various stages
of its implementation.
2. That the
categorisation of establishments as “exempt” relates to Employee Provident Fund
and not to the Pension scheme.
3. That the distinction
made between “exempt” and other establishments is untenable and wrong in law.
4. That there have been
various challenges, to the above categorisation and consequent denial of
revision of pension, in various courts and that the Supreme Court in its order
dated 15th
December 2017 had deferred hearing the matter until the Kerala
High Court judgement was available for adjudication.
5. In recognition of the
above, this meeting, decided that there was a need to open channels of communication
and co-ordination between various groups related to and affected by EPS 95.
This was necessary in order to focus the challenge and consolidate effort and
resources. Towards achieving this objective, it was decided to
a) i)Bring various groups together in various
cities across the country and
ii)
Send a message to the Govt. of India that there is consolidation and
co-ordination amongst various affected groups.
b) In order to achieve a) above it was
decided to
i.
Form
a task force and
ii.
to
Organize a dharna at all state capitals so that various groups located in
various cities are able to meet each other and form a consolidated force.
c)
The task force formed under b) above would
i)
In
consultation with lawyers and experts prepare a response to the outcome of the
Kerala High Court Judgement and the likely appeals that may be filed in the
Supreme Court.
ii)
Circulate
the response prepared and convene another similar meeting where the legal
strategy and way forward would be decided and
iii)
Draft
a letter to the Prime Minister and Minister for Labour Govt. of India that
would be send from different places at the end of the proposed dharna.
6. This meeting decided
to place the funds collected for this meeting less the expenditure in the
custody of the task force to be used for the tasks assigned under 5 above.
With warm regards,
--
Dr.V.N.Sharma, Chairman
Federation of Retired SAIL Employees (Regd)
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें