K NARASIMHA RAO Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION BARKATPURA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned standing counsel for APSRTC Sri P Durga Prasad and learned standing counsel for E.P.F. Organisation Sri T. Balaji and Sri Y Ravindra.

(2.) In all these writ petitions, petitioners were employees of A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short RTC) and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Employees working in organisations like respondent corporation have to enroll with the Employees Provident Fund established under Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act, 1952). However, Act, 1952 enables employer to seek exemption from the provisions of the Act, if the employer floats a scheme more beneficial to the employees than the fund established under the Act, 1952. RTC is exempted from the provisions of the Act and has created its own Provident Fund Trust. In the year 1995, the Government of India, floated ' The Employee's Pension Scheme, 1995' (for short scheme,1995). This is in addition to Provident Fund. This pension scheme enables employees enrolled into the scheme to get monthly pension. Under the scheme, 1995 to the extent relevant for this case, it is appropriate to note that employee has to enroll into 1995 Pension scheme and employer has to remit 8.33% from 12 % employer contribution to the Employees Provident Fund Organization (for short EPFO). The scheme initially imposed ceiling of Rs.5000/- salary to determine 8.33% contribution to Pension scheme, later enhanced to Rs.6500/-. However, over and above the ceiling on compulsory contribution, it is open to the employee to contribute more under the scheme based on the actual salary drawn by employee. However, paragraph 26.6 of the Provident Fund Scheme under Act, 1952 envisages that the employer and employee have to make a joint request to the EPFO. Officer not below the rank of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of EPFO is the nodal officer to whom such communication should be made expressing willingness to contribute more to pension scheme and on giving such consent if higher amount is contributed, the employee is entitled to receive higher monthly pension. The subject of controversy is on whether such willingness was informed to EPFO.

(3.) It is the common ground of petitioners as well as respondent corporation that they have consented to contribute higher amount of pension, than the minimum amount prescribed and such contribution at the rate of 8.33% on actual salary was credited every month to the EPFO. According to respondent corporation, as can be seen from paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed in W P No. 33804 of 2012, EPFO was informed about willingness of the employee to contribute higher pension amount and acceptance by employer. It has also referred to letter No. EPSI/547(1)/2012 dated 31.7.2007 where-under such consent and making of contribution was informed to EPFO.