How Can We Retain Employees Over 58 Without Offering Full Benefits? Seeking Advice

Dear Seniors,

I would require your advice on the subject mentioned. We want to keep our employees after 58 years of age as well, but after the age of 58, there are a few benefits that they will not receive. So, we would like to know the do's and don'ts of the same.

Regards,
Amit Acharya

Of course, there is a legal minimum age limit for employment, but no maximum limit. There is no legal compulsion for fixing the age of superannuation at 58. In fact, it is a matter left to the discretion of the employer and the employed, depending on the nature of the job, the policy of the establishment, prevailing industry-cum-social practice, etc.

There are countries like the U.S.A and corporate companies like Sony where no age of retirement is fixed for employees other than the CEOs, subject to their physical fitness beyond a certain age and performance. After 58 years, you cannot continue the employees in the EPF Scheme. But it does not mean that you cannot continue them in employment. Alternatively, you can extend their services beyond the age fixed for retirement and increase their salary proportionately.

In the case of higher jobs, such people can be taken back as consultants on a retainer basis.

Please let me know if you need any further clarification.

Thank you.

This is in addition to what Mr. Umakanthan has said.

Employment After 58 Years

Employment after 58 years depends on the senior employee's physical fitness. More than physical fitness, it is because of the expertise they have acquired in a particular field over time. Finding a similar person of their stature is not easy, hence the continuation of their employment. The outcome is a win-win for both the employer and employee. Therefore, foregoing a few statutory benefits should not be a significant cause for concern.

Challenges in Succession Planning

Now, coming to the opposite side of the above viewpoint: why do things come to such a pass where you need to employ a person even after 58 years? Is this not a failure of the organization to groom a successor? Attainment of 58 years of age was a certainty. Management science teaches us to handle unpredictability or uncertainty. Here, in your case, why could your organization not handle even certainty?

Let us not forget that when a person no less than Mr. NR Narayan Murthy rejoined Infosys in 2013, there was widespread criticism for Infosys's failure to groom a successor. The media criticized Infosys for not generating a single leader from within, though Infosys has a world-class Leadership Development Institute in Mysore.

Mentoring and Succession Planning

In many organizations, there are "Formal Mentoring Programs" wherein seniors become mentors to juniors and groom them for higher positions. There is a concept of succession planning as well. However, generally, succession planning is used at the topmost level of management, i.e., grooming of the board members. For employees, it is a mentoring program.

Feedback on Post Heading

Lastly, I need to give feedback on the heading of your post. Employees are "employed" and not "kept." Therefore, the heading of your post should have read "Advice on Employment of Senior Employees after 58 Years."

Disclaimer: The heading of your post asks for advice. Advice does not come standalone all the time. Occasionally, it is bundled with criticism. This has been happening since time immemorial. Therefore, no complaints will be accepted for critical evaluation of the incident.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

I personally don't think age should be a limiting factor in employment. As long as the person is capable of doing their work and the organization is willing to employ them, the organization should continue to do so. Some of these employees will have a wealth of knowledge that will be valuable to the organization. Furthermore, when an employee has dedicated themselves to the organization until their 58th year, it seems harsh not to continue their employment solely because they have reached a certain age. In countries outside India, this is considered a human rights violation under 'Age Discrimination'. Time flies. All of us will also reach 58 at some point. If we want to continue working and the organization shows us the door only because we are 58, how would we like it—especially if we are more capable of doing our role than some of the others in the organization?

Thanks,
Radha

Your comments appear to be out of context. The querist has raised a query on the cessation of statutory benefits after 58 years. I have written in my previous reply that if a person is allowed to work after 58 years, then he will lose Provident Fund (PF) benefits. This is as per the EPF Act, 1952; hence, employers do not have control over it.

More than discrimination, the case is about dependence on persons. When a person works in a particular function like HR, Finance, Purchase, etc., he/she is bound to possess a wealth of knowledge. Nevertheless, this wealth remains with that person. Why was the organization not proactive in transferring this wealth to another person? Monetary wealth, if concentrated in a few hands, stagnates; that is what the principles of economics teach us. Likewise, it can be concluded that knowledge rots if concentrated in a few heads.

Knowledge Management

The very theory of knowledge management has taken birth to reduce the dependence on a few people. This dependence arises when an organization fails to convert tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. It is well proven how organizations pay a hefty price for depending on individuals, whether they are young or old!

Organization's Culture

Occasionally, there is a downside to employing persons who continue to work well past their retirement age. They fail to connect with the younger generation. Let us not forget that about 35% of India's population is below 30 years of age. Their failure to sync with a generation below creates a problem in the culture of the organization. Additionally, their dogmatic views, lack of technical savviness in day-to-day life, etc., pose challenges. Sometimes these individuals profess, and that too with pride, how they are not technically savvy. Suppose this is also not a problem, but then the last problem arises when these older individuals start brandishing their length of service to silence the voice of the juniors. I know a Managing Director (MD) of a public limited company who is surrounded by individuals who have been with him for the last 25-30 years. Their prolonged association with the MD is hampering the organization's growth because many times these individuals use their long association with the MD as a weapon to scare newcomers!

If we allow older individuals to continue working, then when will the younger generation get a chance to work? Retirement age of 58 or 60 years is a threshold used worldwide, and there is nothing new about it. However, that does not mean that we should consider someone's 58th birthday as an expiry date. Their services can very well be utilized as a consultant.

My Personal Experience

If 1947 is a major cut-off point in the history of India, then the second cut-off point could be 1991. In this year, the then Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao launched economic reforms. The real effects of the reforms were observed after 15 years. However, I had the chance to work under one Vice President (VP) who, even after 15 years of the economic reforms, behaved as if the erstwhile socialist era still continued. Economic reforms had redefined the job market. He did not have even an inch of knowledge of these changes, and neither did he bother to acquire it. Despite his few good qualities, he became the cause of employee attrition. It took a couple of years for management to understand the cause of employee attrition.

Final Comments

Excessive dependence on a few individuals will always have negative repercussions. Our magnates are known to keep themselves surrounded by individuals of their caste or relatives. Little do they realize that this inhibits their growth. In contrast, our current Prime Minister has taken a tough stand and did not include anyone in his council of ministers who is above 80. For this, he has invited wrath from the elders in his party, and occasionally they rant against him. Nevertheless, this is a major shift in the political era. Look at the other political parties. We had Chief Ministerial aspirants who were about to become 80 or 90! Few of them were fragile, feeble, and wheelchair-bound, but the lure of power was so strong that hardly did they bother about their physical infirmities. Retirement is a new era in everyone's life. It has to begin sometime. One cannot scream for discrimination when told to retire after 58 or 60 years.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

I not only endorse but also appreciate the views of Shri Dinesh Divekar. However, in place of the terms "keep" or "employment," the term should be re-employment of a person after superannuation.

There is nothing wrong with the re-employment of any retired person by virtue of their talent. However, in most cases, only those who are sycophants or back-biters—not good workers—are often retained after their superannuation to support upper management against other employees. Employees of real worth never seek to be retained further, as they know they can be successful wherever they go after leaving the organization. In my case, an honest chief engineer offered me a continuous extension of 2 years upon my superannuation. However, I thought it was wrong and unethical to become a hurdle in the promotion of someone else deserving the post. Therefore, I politely rejected his offer, stating that I would prefer to become a free-flying bird, not a captive employee.

If the management deems the services of a retired employee important for the organization, they can retain their services through re-employment as a consultant for a specific period. This role would involve training other employees rather than performing regular work, ensuring that the management does not face a talent shortage in the future.

Moreover, the re-employment of superannuated employees tends to exacerbate unemployment and deny opportunities to the youth, who can also be valuable assets to the company based on a variety of merits from individual to individual.

Regards

Dear Dinesh, Yours is a very good detailed email. I have noted the point on the EPF Act, which is informative. When it comes to dependence, it really depends on the role the person is playing. As you rightly say, if it is in HR, Finance, Purchase, etc., we can transfer that knowledge. However, in some other highly skilled areas, it may not be that easy to transfer, especially when dealing with a crisis. We should, however, actively recruit freshers and train them to support and eventually replace other roles, where possible.

Regarding synchronizing between generations, I think it works best when they all work harmoniously together rather than being separated. Separating age groups may not really solve the problems. I am, however, unsure of the lack of technical savviness point you are making. It seems to be more about the individuals concerned rather than all the people over 50 years. All five fingers on our hand are different.

Except for some countries, there is no statutory retirement age for 'working'. The statutory age only applies to drawing out the benefits.

On the point of being surrounded by relatives, I think that is more of a 'conflict of interest', and several organizations have strict policies not to encourage the same.

While some may not agree, I still believe that a person should move on if he is not capable of performing the role rather than reaching a certain age.

Thanks,

Radha

Nice to know that you agree on the re-employment of talented persons. I am not sure why someone would want to have unprofessional people in the organization, but I am sure you have come across this situation and hence you have posted here. It is really unfortunate if the management supports this culture.

Good employees do not need to cling to the position, but if they want to and the organization also wants to keep them, then I don't believe it is unethical, as the same rule applies to newcomers as well. If they are good, they can also find any place to work. Well, you did a noble act by moving on, giving room to other employees.

Thanks,
Radha

In addition to what two learned members of our forum have said, I feel there is nothing wrong with retaining employees over 58 years of age if they are medically fit and willing. In fact, life expectancy has increased by several years since independence, but many organizations, including central/state PSUs, are still adhering to the 'British Raj' age of retirement of 58 years.

Secondly, in companies where such people are employed, it is normally done on a contractual basis, and the contract is renewed every one/two/three years depending on the organization's need and the employee's performance.

Engaging Employees Over 58 Years of Age

There is no restriction on engaging employees over the age of 58 years. Certainly, their experience is helpful to the management at all times. They will generally be engaged on a contract basis or temporarily and can be removed from service at any time.

Regarding Dos and Don'ts

- You can deduct PF contributions and pay into the No.1 EPF account only. It is an option for the management but not compulsory.
- You can deduct ESI on par with others if their salary is below Rs. 15,000/-.
- Leaves, personal insurance, and any other benefits should be continued or discontinued as per the management's policy.

Normally, talented executives don't want to stick to their old positions. My belief is that if a person is talented and wants to cling to a position even after superannuation, it may indicate a lack of self-confidence, suggesting they cannot survive after retirement or establish themselves in a more lucrative position independently. In that way, they cannot be considered talented.

Regarding the concern of the management, I think Shri Dinesh Divekar has elaborated very well on that point. Otherwise, it is possible that some bosses are more interested in keeping their touts and sycophants around them rather than a talented person.

I fully agree with and endorse Mr. Divekar's point of view. You may also recall instances where succession planning has failed in the past or currently, resulting in significant losses due to a lack of proper planning or execution. I would like to provide two examples to illustrate this point. In ancient times, Bhishma's failure in succession planning had well-known outcomes. Similarly, in today’s scenario, our current Prime Minister introduced the government’s first ordinance to appoint Mr. N. Mishra. Now, you can assess the outcomes for yourself.

There is an old saying that goes, "If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail." This principle is straightforward—if you know that a successor needs to be in place immediately upon reaching the age of 58, and you do not have a competent replacement ready, there can be various repercussions. The question then arises: how should this situation be addressed?

I am not opposed to employing experienced individuals who have been loyal, competent, and versatile in the past. Their services can be retained in roles such as consultants or advisors so that the organization does not suffer.

Please let me know if you need any further clarification or have any questions.

Best regards,
[Your Name]

Dear All,

Thank you for sharing your considerable views and thoughts on the subject. The discussion remains fruitful.

Regarding EPF - Please note that an EPF member remains an EPF member even after attaining the age of 58 years if their employment continues. Only EPS (pension) is discontinued. Either the member can withdraw their Pension share if the service is less than 10 years, or they can apply for a pension if the service is 10 years or more.

With regards,

Talwinder Singh

Points to Consider Regarding Superannuation

1. The EPF Act does not restrict PF contributions to the age of 58 or any specific age. A member can continue their PF contribution as long as they are in service. The only change that occurs upon reaching 58 is that the employer's contribution starts going to the PF Account instead of the Pension Account. Before 58, it used to go to the Pension Account. Therefore, after 58, no benefits are reduced.

2. Reaching a certain age is a natural process, and stopping at one point is necessary. Different countries have varying retirement ages and even different retirement ages for different classes. For the industrial working class, the age has been set to 60 years. Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders prescribe the age of superannuation to be 60 years.

3. If people do not retire, how will young people get employment? There is nothing sentimental or harsh about retiring from service upon reaching a certain age. However, I wonder how the reference to human rights on the point of age discrimination comes into play. The concept of age discrimination is different from what is referred to in the post. Perhaps, in the future, continuing a senior employee may be regarded as "cruelty to senior citizens."

4. The concept of "Four Ashrams," which includes "Vanaprasthashram," has been given its place. If a person starts a job at, say, 18 years of age, then upon reaching 58, it means they have worked for 40 years. That was the limit of Gratuity (20 years of salary) earlier. Now, this limit is to be read with Rs. 10 lakhs, whichever is higher.

5. I hope I have sufficiently explained the background thought of the concept of Superannuation.

Regards,
[Username]

EPF and EPS Guidelines for Employees Over 58

Regarding EPF, there is no age bar. As long as employees are in service beyond 58 years of age, EPF is statutory.

• However, under EPS 1995, an employee shall cease to be a member of the Pension Fund from the date of attaining 58 years of age or from the date of vesting admissible benefits under the Scheme, whichever is earlier. Therefore, pension contributions must be stopped on the day of attaining 58 years.

• Contribution to the pension fund (8.33%) will be diverted to the Provident Fund (whole of 24%, i.e., 12% + 12%), and the pension fund account will be closed. While generating the PF challan, in Account No. 10, deduction of the number of subscribers who have attained 58 years of age shall be made.

I would appreciate enlightenment on the correctness of the above provisions.

Regards,
Libin MP

Dear Amit,

Everyone has rightly said, and no one is against retaining employees. The issue arises as to why you or your organization want to retain them. Is there a lack of succession planning? Is there a lack of skills in the available manpower? If so, it is not a good sign for a healthcare organization.

Thank you.

Dear Mr. Kulkarni,

Thank you for the excellent write-up and justification for retirement and 'Vanaprasthashram' advice post 58 years. However, most of our politicians should have been in the mountains or deep woods observing penance! If they can continue well past practically any age (93-year-old Achutanandan in Kerala was ready to become CM), then is it not too much to expect an "aam aadmi" to accept retirement not at old age but in middle age of 58 years?

Dear Sai Bhakta,

I would like to correct you. During the British Raj, the age of retirement was only 55 years, not 58 years. After 15 years of independence, it was the Government of India that raised the retirement age of Government Employees from 55 to 58 in the year 1962. The age of retirement was further increased from 58 years to 60 years in the year 1998.

Thank you.

The retirement age for government employees was raised to 60 years in 1998. Many central PSUs followed suit, but within a year or two, many of them rolled back their retirement age to 58 years. Even in cases where 58 years was the retirement age, the management reserved the right to retire an employee anytime after he or she attained 55 years of age. Of course, the employee also had the freedom to request retirement. The British legacy was very much present, just like it was for several years in our Budget presentation in parliament at 4:30 p.m., which was 11 a.m. in London and convenient for the 'Masters'.

Regards,
[username]

Dear Sai Bhakta,

I wonder if your present reply has any relevance to the current issue. The issue at hand pertains to the retention of an employee beyond the retirement age of 58 years, whereas your response focuses on the employer's right to retire the employee at the age of 55, citing it as a legacy of the British Raj.

Regarding the legacy of the British Raj, it not only influences service laws but also permeates almost every aspect of the legal framework in our country. Laws predating independence continue to impact various spheres of Indian life.

Thank you.

Provident Fund and Pension Contributions for Employees Over 58

I am making this reference on behalf of my colleague who has recently attained 58 years of age. Upon reaching this age, no contributions towards the Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund are made by his employer. However, he continues in service beyond 58 years of age.

I understand that under EPS 1995, an employee shall cease to be a member of the Pension Fund from the date of attaining 58 years of age. However, there is no age restriction for the contribution to the Provident Fund. As long as the employee is engaged in service, he can contribute to the Provident Fund, and the employer is also bound to contribute 12% to the Provident Fund. Therefore, the pension contribution alone has to be stopped on the day of attaining 58 years. Contribution to the pension fund (8.33%) will be diverted to the Provident Fund (the whole of 24%, i.e., 12% + 12%), and the pension fund account will be closed.

Regarding the withdrawal of the Family Pension, he has been advised to submit the application only after his discharge from employment, i.e., he cannot draw the pension as long as he is employed, notwithstanding the fact that he has already ceased to be a member of the Pension Fund upon attaining 58 years of age. I would like to know the correctness of this statement.

With high regards,

Libin MP