SC Judgement
On 26th March, 2019, in a Civil application challenging judgement of divisional bench of High Court at Calcutta, Hon. SC pronounced its decision on question “Whether the retired employees of Railways , who had withdrawn all the superannuation benefits, including amount of accumulations in their provident fund accounts, are to be treated as “excluded employees” in terms of paragraph 2(f) of the Scheme of 1952?”
SC has dismissed the appeal upholding judgement of divisional bench of High Court at Calcutta that the retired employee upon joining employment will not be automatically treated as “excluded employee”
Implications : Upon re-employment, the person by whatever name he is called, whatever be his age and irrespective of the type of remuneration (lump sum, honorarium , retainership etc.) he has to be included in provident fund scheme. However the term pertaining to ceiling of Rs. 15,000/- for mandatory PF membership shall remain, subject to fulfilment of required declaration.
On 26th March, 2019, in a Civil application challenging judgement of divisional bench of High Court at Calcutta, Hon. SC pronounced its decision on question “Whether the retired employees of Railways , who had withdrawn all the superannuation benefits, including amount of accumulations in their provident fund accounts, are to be treated as “excluded employees” in terms of paragraph 2(f) of the Scheme of 1952?”
SC has dismissed the appeal upholding judgement of divisional bench of High Court at Calcutta that the retired employee upon joining employment will not be automatically treated as “excluded employee”
Implications : Upon re-employment, the person by whatever name he is called, whatever be his age and irrespective of the type of remuneration (lump sum, honorarium , retainership etc.) he has to be included in provident fund scheme. However the term pertaining to ceiling of Rs. 15,000/- for mandatory PF membership shall remain, subject to fulfilment of required declaration.