Employer correction
Correct master data, return and remittance with a preserved audit trail; do not overwrite the original default.
Paragraph 60: Special provisions
Paragraph-wise legal explanation, implementation control, evidence, remedy and transition mapping for Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 2026.
Annexure — Special provisionsG.S.R. 525(E)Transition and savings
What this paragraph regulates
Paragraph 60 is the canonical current-scheme provision for Special provisions. It must be read with the Code on Social Security, 2020, the defined terms, current Central Government notifications, EPFO implementation directions and saved legacy rights.
Legal source: Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 2026, notified under section 15(1)(a) of the Code on Social Security, 2020. It supersedes Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, except for things already done or omitted before supersession. Open Gazette copy.
Paragraph-specific legal and control map
Control 1: Contains special transition and compliance-relief programmes in the Annexure
Contains special transition and compliance-relief programmes in the Annexure.
Implementation test: Identify the responsible person, source data, statutory event, approval and retained evidence for this control. A payroll label or portal status alone is not conclusive where underlying facts differ.
Control 2: Employees’ Enrolment Campaign 2026 addresses previously omitted eligible employees
Employees’ Enrolment Campaign 2026 addresses previously omitted eligible employees.
Implementation test: Identify the responsible person, source data, statutory event, approval and retained evidence for this control. A payroll label or portal status alone is not conclusive where underlying facts differ.
Control 3: VISHWAS 2026 and Amnesty 2026 require separate eligibility, declaration, payment and closure analysis
VISHWAS 2026 and Amnesty 2026 require separate eligibility, declaration, payment and closure analysis.
Implementation test: Identify the responsible person, source data, statutory event, approval and retained evidence for this control. A payroll label or portal status alone is not conclusive where underlying facts differ.
Control 4: Relief conditions should be documented case by case; a campaign does not erase liabilities outside its scope
Relief conditions should be documented case by case; a campaign does not erase liabilities outside its scope.
Implementation test: Identify the responsible person, source data, statutory event, approval and retained evidence for this control. A payroll label or portal status alone is not conclusive where underlying facts differ.
Responsible parties
- EPFO / authorised officer
- Employer or member, according to the transaction
Code linkage
Sections 15, 128, 133, 138, 153 and 164.
Timing and trigger
Scheme-specific windows and conditions; verify the live EPFO implementation order before filing.
Decision questions
- Is the establishment and person covered on the event date?
- Is this a current-scheme event, a saved legacy event or a correction?
- Which wage, service, balance, family or fund data is legally relevant?
- Which form, portal, authority and evidence are required?
Evidence and audit trail
- old-scheme record
- new-scheme mapping
- pending-item register
- saved-rights analysis
- closure evidence
Minimum review controls
- Maker-checker sign-off tied to employee/member ID.
- Reconciliation to payroll, contractor, fund and bank records where relevant.
- Current rate, ceiling, circular and portal version check.
- Exception log and legal basis for overrides or delayed correction.
- Retention of acknowledgement, order and proof of payment/benefit.
Non-compliance, remedy and escalation
Possible consequences include contribution assessment, interest, damages, recovery, penalty, benefit correction, delayed-claim interest, cancellation of exemption or litigation. The exact pathway depends on whether the issue concerns coverage, contribution, a Fund decision, a member benefit or an exempted establishment.
Member/claimant remedy
Use the prescribed claim, grievance, review or appeal route with complete supporting evidence.
Authority action
Assessment, interest, damages and recovery should be separately quantified and linked to the applicable Code order.
Worked control scenario
An establishment receives a transaction or employee event that falls within Special provisions. The compliance owner first fixes the event date and member status, then retrieves wage/service/nomination or fund data as relevant. The maker prepares the statutory computation or claim; an independent reviewer checks the Code link, paragraph conditions, current ceiling/rate and prior transactions. Only after reconciliation is the portal filing or payment completed. The acknowledgement, calculation and supporting records are retained together.
Failure pattern: treating an EPFO portal acceptance as proof that the underlying legal classification, wage base or claimant entitlement is correct. Portal processing does not eliminate assessment, recovery, damages, benefit-revision or competing-claim risk.
Practical Q&A
Can a contract or payroll policy override this paragraph?
No. A contract may allocate operational responsibility but cannot reduce statutory liability or member entitlement.
Can an old-scheme paragraph still matter?
Yes, for things done, omitted, accrued or pending before supersession. Document the event date and savings basis; do not mix historic and current rules.
Is the Gazette page alone enough for live compliance?
No. Check later notifications, EPFO circulars, portal specifications, court orders and establishment-specific exemption orders.