The Kerala High Court has issued a notice to the Union Government and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on a writ petition challenging evidence that he has paid higher pension fund contribution under Section 26 (6) of the Employee Provident Fund Scheme. from employees to get a higher pension.
In their writ petition, Sasheer S. and 19 other BSNL employees in Kerala argued that the High Court had held in the Sasikumar case that the employees had the right to exercise the option under Section 26 (6) of the EPF scheme without being restricted. date.
EPFO could not go beyond what was ordered by the Supreme Court and therefore the link exempted in terms of the option under subsection 26(6) should be disabled or corrected because otherwise no employee/employer would be able to exercise the option. subsection 4 of § 11 of the pension system.
They said that the first option presented in the link was for Section 26(6) of the EPF Scheme. In the link, another option is that if there is no option according to subsection 26, the link asks if it has been rejected and if it is rejected, whether a rejection order will be delivered. If a rejection order has not been issued, it is not possible to go further. The restriction of the link was against the declaration of the law. So such part of the link had to be disabled or the option should be used in a different mode than the link or as hard copies.
This is your last free article.