The long-standing demand to increase the minimum pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS-95) once again came up in Parliament, and the government has now clearly stated out its position.
In a written reply to a starred question in the Lok Sabha, Labour and Employment Minister Dr. Mansukh Mandaviya addressed multiple concerns ranging from pension revision to higher wage benefits and timelines for pensioners.
What was asked in the Lok Sabha?
MP N K Premachandran raised five key questions, including whether the government has any plans to implement recommendations of a High Empowered Monitoring Committee for revising EPF pension and wether these recommendations have been studied.
The member also sought to know minimum pension on higher wages and whether any study has been done on low minimum pension and possible increase. He also asked the government if pensioners will get more time to deposit dues for higher pension.
Govt’s clear response on pension revision
In a combined reply, the Labour and Employment Minister did not indicate any immediate move to revise the minimum pension or implement committee recommendations. Instead, the government explained how the current system works and emphasised sustainability.
The minister stated that EPS-95 is a “Defined Contribution–Defined Benefit social security scheme”, where the pension fund is built through employer contribution of 8.33% of wages, and 1.16% contribution by the Central Government (on wages up to Rs 15,000 per month)…”
“All benefits under the scheme are paid out of such accumulations,” the government said, highlighting that the fund is evaluated annually to ensure long-term viability.
Minimum pension: Govt reiterates Rs 1,000 support
On the issue of low pensions—a major concern for retirees—the government reiterated that it is already providing minimum pension of Rs 1,000 per month under EPS-95. Importantly, the minister noted that this support comes through budgetary backing and is “in addition to the 1.16% contribution” made by the government towards EPS every year.
There was no mention of any proposal to increase this minimum amount, which has remained unchanged for years despite repeated demands.
Background: Why the demand keeps coming up
The demand to raise the minimum EPS pension—often to Rs 7,500 or higher—has been a long-running issue. Pensioners’ associations have consistently argued that Rs 1,000 is inadequate given rising living costs.
This debate has intensified in recent years, especially after court rulings and discussions around pension on higher wages. However, the government has maintained that any increase must be balanced with the financial sustainability of the pension fund and future liabilities.
Update on higher pension (Supreme Court order)
The government also shared a detailed update on pension on higher wages following the Supreme Court’s November 2022 ruling.
Around 15.24 lakh applications for joint option were submitted till January 31, 2025
As of March 9, 2026, over 99.2% applications have been processed
“Demand letters have been issued to eligible applicants,” the reply said. Pension Payment Orders (PPOs) have already been issued to retirees who deposited the required amount and submitted Form 10D.
For those still in service, PPOs will be issued after retirement (at age 58), once the claim is filed.
Timeline for depositing dues
On whether pensioners will get more time to pay for higher pension, the government clarified the rule: “Pensioners can remit the dues within three calendar months from the month of issuance of demand letter.”
No extension beyond this standard window was announced.
Summing up…
While the issue of increasing minimum EPS pension continues to gain attention, the latest government response suggests no immediate plan for a hike. The focus remains on maintaining the financial health of the EPFO system, even as lakhs of pensioners await relief.
At the same time, the near-completion of higher pension application processing marks a significant administrative milestone—but for many retirees, the bigger question of pension adequacy still remains unresolved.