Ajeet Madhavrao Gopchade, Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament from the Bharatiya Janata Party, has written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, seeking his intervention to resolve the pending issues of higher EPS pension.

The MP also highlighted that he had asked a question about the Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS) in Parliament in August this year, where Parliament gave him assurance about the resolution of the issue, but the assurance is still marked as pending.

Gopchade writes that despite the government’s assurance that the Supreme Court’s November 4, 2022, decision related to the higher EPS pension has been implemented uniformly, a lot of pensioners are still facing procedural problems, and many cases have been pending in different courts in India. Gopchade has thus asked the Prime Minister to intervene and resolve these issues.

The EPS contribution from the employer’s side to the employee’s EPS pension fund is 8.33% of the employee’s basic salary and dearness allowance (DA). However, under the old Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) wage ceiling of Rs 15,000, the maximum EPS contribution was Rs 1,250, which is likely to rise to approximately Rs 2,083 under the new wage ceiling of Rs 25,000.

However, in November 2022, the Supreme Court upheld the right of existing employees to opt for higher pension by contributing to the EPS on a higher/uncapped salary.

Even though the government assured that the Supreme Court’s decision has been implemented, to date, only a small number of people get a higher pension under the EPS scheme.

What did MP write to PM Modi about higher EPS pension?

Gopchade has raised five main points in his letter to the Prime Minister. The demands are as follows-

1. Para 26(6) of the EPF Act should be reviewed

The MP, citing a May 2023 letter from the Ministry of Labour & Employment to the Central PF Commissioner, says that the ministry itself described Para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme as a hurdle in processing applications for higher pension.

In the letter to the EPF Commissioner, the Ministry had written: “Under Para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, an employer/employee has to give an option for remittance on higher wages, and the EPFO has to allow the same. It emerged that the EPFO never prescribed any format for giving this option, and more importantly, the EPFO field offices have not given/issued permission for remittance on higher wages under Para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme, though employers/employees have been remitting contribution on higher wages.”

Gopchade writes to the PM that in view of the continuing difficulties faced by pensioners, this issue should be reviewed comprehensively so that an identified procedural anomaly does not become an impediment to the legitimate consideration of eligible higher-pension claims.

2. Parliamentary assurance that is still marked ‘pending’

The MP writes that he had asked a question about the higher pension in the Rajya Sabha on August 6, 2026, about the uniform implementation of higher pension.

Gopchade says that the government had replied that the EPFO had taken action to implement the Supreme Court's November 4, 2022, judgment in a time-bound manner and said that the judgment had been implemented uniformly for exempted and unexempted establishments.

Gopchade writes that the matter subsequently became Parliamentary Assurance No. 271/72, which is currently marked ‘pending.’

3. Higher EPS pension litigation continuing in various courts

Gopchade writes that despite the steps already taken, higher pension cases continue to be filed in various High Courts on higher pension issues, including Para 26(6), exempted establishments, trust rules, historical contributions and the implementation of judicial directions.

Referring to the Ministry’s communication dated September 17, 2026, which states that the Supreme Court judgment has been implemented uniformly for exempted and un-exempted establishments, Gopchade points out that if that’s the case, why are similarly placed pensioners still approaching different courts over similar implementation issues.

The MP writes that if the Supreme Court clarifies the legal position emerging from High Court decisions concerning eligible higher EPS pensioners, it would be appropriate to have a clear institutional mechanism through which the final legal position can be extended uniformly to all higher pension beneficiaries.

4. Financial and actuarial sustainability of EPS

Gopchade writes that the financial sustainability of the EPS pension should be examined comprehensively, including the adequacy of its contribution structure from the inception of the scheme. The MP writes that by doing so, legitimate financial concerns can be addressed through appropriate actuarial, policy and financial mechanisms.

5. Pensioners in same trusts getting different pensions

Gopchade raises another issue highlighting that employees in the same trusts are getting different types of pensions.

The Rajya Sabha MP writes that as per representations received, employees associated with certain BHEL/SAIL trusts are reportedly receiving higher pension benefits, while similarly placed employees with certain other BHEL/SAIL trusts are facing difficulties in receiving the same pension benefits.

The MP writes that such differences create uncertainty and distress among retired employees.

“A uniform examination of such cases would therefore help ensure greater clarity, consistency and fairness in implementation,” writes the MP.

What Rajya Sabha MP wants PM to do

Gopchade wants a comprehensive review of the higher pension matter at the highest level in the Prime Minister’s Office. He has six demands from the PM regarding the uniformity of higher pension cases.

1.Resolve implementation issues concerning Para 26(6) of the EPF Act

2. Ensure the uniform treatment of similarly situated eligible pensioners, including employees of exempted establishments

3. Establish an appropriate mechanism for extending the final settled legal position to similarly situated beneficiaries without avoidable repetitive litigation

4. Comprehensively examine the financial and actuarial sustainability of EPS-1995 and its contribution structure

5. Ensure the time-bound disposal of eligible higher pension cases

6. Review and fulfil Parliamentary Assurance No. 271/72 (about higher EPS pension) in its true spirit.