EPFO disposed of over 98.5% applications for pension on higher wages: government
According to a written reply in the Lok Sabha by Minister of State for Labour & Employment Shobha Karandlaje, 4,00,573 demand letters were issued to applicants eligible for PoHW and 11,01,582 were rejected, while 21,995 are pending.
'EPFO has processed and disposed of applications for pension on higher wages as per the directions of the Supreme Court in its judgement dated November 4, 2022. As on July 16, 2025, more than 98.5 per cent applications have been disposed of by EPFO,' the Minister said in her written reply on Monday.
The cases of PoHW are being processed on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court on November 4, 2022. Earlier in November 2022, the court had upheld the Employees' Pension (Amendment) Scheme 2014.
The Employees' Pension Scheme amendment of August 22, 2014, had raised the pensionable salary cap to ₹15,000 a month from ₹6,500 a month, and allowed members, along with their employers, to contribute 8.33% on their actual salaries (if it exceeded the cap) towards the EPS.
It had given all EPS members, as on September 1, 2014, six months to opt for the amended scheme.
Later, the EPFO had also extended the deadline for members as well as employers to submit documents many times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
EPFO Rules: Does Your Employer Contribute Less Towards PF Account? Check Key Factors To Avoid Discrepancies
Last Updated: EPFO manages EPF funds for private sector employees, mandating contributions from both employee and employer. Learn why employer contributions appear lower. The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) manages the funds under the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) scheme, providing an opportunity to private sector employees to build a retirement corpus. According to the EPFO rules, each company or business establishment with 20 or more employees is mandated to register under the EPF scheme. The EPF scheme, aimed at providing financial security to employees in the formal sector, mandates contributions by both the employee and the employer every month. The accumulated corpus fund in a PF account can be withdrawn on retirement. Partial withdrawals from the EPF account are also allowed under certain conditions. The government reviews and fixes the EPF interest rate at periodic intervals. For FY 2024-25, the government has fixed the interest rate at 8.25%. As per the EPFO rules, an employee contributes 12 per cent of the basic salary and dearness allowance (DA) every month to the PF account and an equal amount is also contributed by the employer. However, you may have noticed in your payslip that your employer is contributing much less than your contribution towards the provident fund account. Let's understand why it happens and how the employer's contribution in the PF account is structured. The Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) comprises of three different schemes, including retirement benefits, Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS) and EDLI (insurance). However, since your employer must also cover the other schemes of the EPF, their contribution towards the PF account gets divided, leading to a disproportional immediate reflection of their part of the sum towards PF. As per the EPF structure, 8.33 per cent of the employer's contribution is distributed in the Employees' Pension Scheme (EPS) to cover the pension component that you get after retirement and the remaining 3.67 per cent goes towards the Employees' Provident Fund (EPF). So, generally, when EPF members check their passbooks, the PF contribution by the employers appears lower compared to the employee's contribution. An employee can check their and the employer's overall EPF contribution via the EPFO member's passbook. It's advisable to regularly check the EPF balance to rectify any discrepancies in the employer's contribution. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Lenders Win Reprieve in UK Motor Finance Case From Top Court
A group of lenders won a major reprieve in a pivotal UK car finance case, after the country's top judges agreed that banks should only pay compensation in the most serious cases of motor finance misselling. The Supreme Court on Friday overturned most of a lower court ruling that last year had sent shares in affected banks spiralling. The decision also throws into uncertainty a compensation program that analysts previously estimated would cost the banks tens of billions of pounds. The Financial Conduct Authority said it would confirm before markets open on Monday whether it would go ahead with its plans. 'We will be working through the weekend to analyze the judgment and determine our next steps,' an FCA spokesperson said in a statement. 'If we do decide to propose a redress scheme, we'll consult widely.' The ruling was issued after the London stock markets had closed to prevent any market disruption, Judge Robert Reed said. Lloyds Banking Group Plc and Close Brothers Group Plc American depositary receipts were up more than 4% at 6:30 p.m. in London. The court said car dealers can act in their commercial interests, and dismissed most of the arguments that dealers selling loans for the banks must obtain consumers' informed consent to charge commission. The dealer 'was not a fiduciary: that is to say, a person entirely committed to acting in another person's interest without any interest of his own,' Judge Reed said. 'On the contrary, the car dealer was at all times pursuing its own commercial interests in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms.' The judges upheld one of the Court of Appeal's rulings, saying a case brought by one of the claimants — Marcus Johnson — stood out because of several factors including the high level of commission the consumer was charged and the fact that the customer was expected to read a lengthy legal contract to understand the size of that fee. He also wasn't told that his lender, FirstRand Ltd., had the right to refuse the loan in the first place. 'I am delighted for him,' said Kevin Durkin, a lawyer for Johnson. 'It's a really good win for the consumer because they have got an angle and a route into court now.' Peter Rothwell, head of banking at KPMG, said affected banks will still need to continue preparations to compensate eligible customers. 'But they can do so with greater confidence that it will focus on discretionary commission arrangements and cases where there is a breach of the Consumer Credit Act as a result of an unfair relationship, rather than all historic commissions.' Professional services firm BDO said the judgment could still result in redress of between £5 billion and £13 billion, or more, with clarity needed from the FCA about its next steps. Before Friday's ruling, analysts had estimated that the total bill for compensation could top £30 billion. Close Brothers and FirstRand appealed the case to the top court after previous judges said that consumers taking out car loans without giving informed consent about commission were treated unfairly. In a company statement on Saturday, Close Brothers welcomed the ruling on motor finance commissions, calling it a source of legal clarity. There remains uncertainty over potential costs until the FCA confirms whether it plans to consult on a redress scheme, the company added. FirstRand did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Finance and Leasing Association, an industry body, said the ruling 'properly reflects the role and responsibilities of dealers, lenders and customers, and it has restored certainty and clarity to the largest point-of-sale consumer credit market in the UK.' 'The FCA now has the legal clarity to continue its work to establish if a redress scheme is needed, and of course the thousands of unfounded complaints submitted to lenders by claimant law firms and CMCs can now be removed from the system,' Stephen Haddrill, director general of the FLA, said in a statement. What Bloomberg Intelligence Says: Lloyds and UK peers' £1.7 billion in provisions for covering car-loan risks may be sufficient after the Supreme Court significantly narrowed lenders' legal exposure by reining in a lower court's findings. The ruling is a relief for the sector and allows lenders to effectively avoid a scandal that could cost as much as £30 billion. — Tomasz Noetzel, senior analyst, banks With assistance from Ronan Martin, Adelaide Changole and Christian Dass. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hindustan Times
11 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC takes cognisance of ecological crisis in Himachal Pradesh
The Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognizance of what it said was grave ecological crisis facing Himachal Pradesh, warning that unscientific construction and development could cause the entire hill state to 'vanish into thin air' from India's map. The court partly blamed 'unscientific construction' for recent natural disasters, and said that tourism pressure fuelled by 'human greed and apathy' is undermining the state's ecological fabric. (Shutterstock) The court partly blamed 'unscientific construction' for recent natural disasters, and said that tourism pressure fuelled by 'human greed and apathy' is undermining the state's ecological fabric, an intervention that came during a hearing on a petition by a resort company challenging the state's June 6 notification declaring Tara Mata hill a 'green area' with construction restrictions. While dismissing the resort's plea and lauding the notification, the bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahdevan expanded the case's scope to address the broader environmental emergency gripping the state. 'We want to impress upon the state government and Union of India respectively that earning revenue is not everything. Revenue cannot be earned at the cost of environment and ecology,' the court said. 'If things proceed the way they are as on date, then the day is not far when the entire State of Himachal Pradesh may vanish in thin air from the map of the country.' Hoping this never happens, the court posted the matter for 25 August and sought the state's response on whether it has an action plan, emphasising that time is of essence as 'the situation in the state has gone from bad to worse.' The court's sharp observations came against the backdrop of widespread devastation that struck tourist towns in Kullu, Mandi, Shimla and Chamba districts during the monsoon seasons of 2023 and the one underway at present. 'Nature definitely is annoyed with the activities which are going on in the State of HP,' the bench said, noting that landslides and flash floods have become commonplace in the state, which is prone to natural calamities. Partly attributing the natural calamities to 'unscientific construction,' the court warned that unchecked tourism pressure could 'severely undermine the ecological and social fabric of the state.' The court highlighted how 'human greed and apathy' is driving the construction of four-lane roads to promote tourism, with heavy machinery and explosives weakening mountain slopes. It flagged the depletion of forest cover and receding glaciers as contributors to climate change, alongside unplanned hotel and resort construction that violates zonal plans and environmental clearances. 'Since the state lies in the lap of the Himalayan peaks, it is important to seek the opinion of geologists, environmental experts and local people before any development project is undertaken,' the court said. The bench also noted significant problems including waste generation, traffic congestion, noise pollution, overuse of water resources, and encroachment into ecologically sensitive areas. 'Ecological diversity and growing human demands necessitate immediate sustainable planning and conservation measures,' the court said, directing its registry to issue notice to the Himachal Pradesh government. The court expects the state to file an appropriate reply explaining whether it has an action plan and 'what do they propose to do future.' Looking beyond the state's borders, the court emphasised the need for 'all Himalayan states, pan India to collate resources and expertise so as to ensure that development plans are cognisant of these challenges.'
