Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
  • 0
gopal2903

Payment of Employer's contribution to provident fund

Question

gopal2903

I have been working with Syndicate Bank for > 30 years and have been dismissed recently.

 

Am I eligible for the Bank's contribution made to the CPF as I did not opt for Pension. I have been paid only my contribution so far.

 

What are the provision for gratuity.

 

Gopalkrishna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

There have been no answers to this question yet

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Mr. Himanshu J. Mehta Vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ahmedabad.
       
      Appeal No. 111/ICPB/2006 In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19.
       
      Appellant: Mr. Himanshu J. Mehta
      Public authority: Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ahmedabad. Sh. S.S.Nair - CPIO Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – Appellate Authority.
       
       
       
      FACTS: The appellant vide his communication dated 21.12.2005 addressed to the CPIO had sought the following information, followed by first appeal dated 23.2.2006 to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner : i. Allotment of Provident Fund Code No.GJ/28322 allotted to M/s Tectona Soft Solution (Pvt) Ltd. ii. Copy of the Application submitted by M/s Tectona Soft Solution (Pvt) Ltd. iii. Copy of the Notification of the Provident Fund Commissioner applying the provisions of the Act. iv. Copy of the Letter of Authority used by Mahesh Shah to appear before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in proceedings initiated u/s 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act. v. Copy of the proceedings which have been attended by Mahesh Shah on behalf of the company M/s. Tectona Soft Solution (Pvt) Ltd. By a letter dated 7.4.2006, the Public Authority informed the appellant that hearing in the above matter has been scheduled on 21.4.2006 during which the documents sought for by the appellant could be handed over. The appellant filed an appeal before the AA on 17.4.2006. Since he did not get any reply from AA, he filed the present appeal. Comments were called for from CPIO. Pointing out that proceedings had been initiated against M/S Tectona Soft Solution Pvt. Ltd. under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act which is pending has contended that the matter is pending before a quasi judicial authority. It has also been stated in the comments that the appellant has already been advised that whatever documents had been sought for would be furnished to him during the proceedings but no body has so far appeared on behalf of the establishment. In his elaborate rejoinder, the appellant has contended that the provisions of EPF was not applicable at all to the establishment and has sought for directions to the CPIO to furnish the information asked for by the appellant.
       
       
      DECISIONI find from the reply of the CPIO that he has not taken shelter under any of the exemptions provided under Section 8 of the Act but has only informed the appellant that the documents could be handed over during the course of the hearing. Since the appellant has claimed himself to be the advocate for M/S Tectona Soft Solutions (Pvt) Ltd, on his producing an authority from the said company, the CPIO will furnish all the information sought for by the appellant within 15 days from the receipt of the authority from the company as I find that the information sought for is not exempt under any of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act. In so far as the contention of the appellant in his rejoinder that EPF Act is not applicable to the company, this Commission has no powers to enquire into such matters.
       
      Sd/-
      (Padma Balasubramanian)
      Information Commissioner
       
       
       
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission



      Decision No. 297/IC(A)/2006
      F. No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00663
      Dated, the 21st September, 2006



      Name of the Appellant : Shri S. Gangaiah Nayakar, 3/488, Rajapalayam Salai, T. N.C.Alangulam, District - Virudhunagar-626127
      Name of the Public Authority: Indian Overseas Bank, Customers Service Department, Central office, 763,Anna Salai, Channai-600 002. DECISION
       
      The appellant had sought certain information, which was largely furnished to him.
      The CPIO however denied the information relating to the details of loan accounts of another person and other documents submitted by him. The CPIO contented that the information sought is related to personal information, which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.
      There is no denial of information to the appellant. The Banks are expected to maintain confidentiality of the accounts of its customers and that the documents submitted by its customers do not fall under public domain. Hence, exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
      Sd/-
      (Prof M. M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner
      Download the decision from Download Segment



Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy