The Kerala High Court has issued a notice to the Union government and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) on a writ petition challenging the requirement to furnish proof of having paid higher provident fund contribution under para 26 (6) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme by the employees for getting higher pension.
In a writ petition, Sasheer S. and other 19 employees of the BSNL in Kerala contended that the High Court had held in the Sasikumar case that employees were entitled to exercise option stipulated by para 26 (6) of the EPF Scheme without being restricted by a date.
The EPFO could not exceed what has been directed by the Supreme Court and therefore the link released with regard to the option under para 26 (6) should be disabled or corrected as otherwise none of the employees/employers would be able to exercise the option under para 11 (4) of the pension scheme.
They said that the first option to be furnished in the link was with regard to para 26 (6) of the EPF Scheme. In the link, the second option is that if there is no option under para 26 (6), the link would ask whether it is rejected and if so to furnish the rejection order. In the absence of the rejection order one cannot go further. The restriction in the link was against the declaration of the law. So such a portion in the link had to be disabled or an option should be exercised in a mode other than link or by way of hard copies.
