Form-10 The Employees' Provident Fund Scheme , 1952: Fill & Download for Free

EPFO Enforcement officer(EO)/Accounts Officer(AO) is a Level 8( GP 4800). Normally inspectors in other departments are’ appointed at Level 7( GP 4600). EO and AO refers to the same person. When he is handling field related work, he is referred to as EO and when handling Office related work , referred to as AO.Some of the important duties of EOTimely submission of coverage proposals for extension of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 every establishment which attracts the application of the Act by reason of requisite employment strength.To recommend the coverage of establishment under section 1 (4) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on the joint request of the employer and the majority of the employees of the establishment, provided the establishment is not statutorily coverable under the Act.To submit proposals for extension of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 establishment participating in common Provident Fund in which one or more than one establishment is already covered under the Act.Having covered an establishment to secure full compliance by the employer of that establishment with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 and / or Schemes framed there under.To attend the problems of employers arising in the process of complaints and the grievances of the employees and where he cannot solve the problem or redress the grievances, report the case the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for further action.To conduct surveys when asked for to assess coverage potential of new categories of establishments.To supply various prescribed forms to the employers on their request and educate them about their proper completion and prompt submission to the Regional Office.To report the Regional Commissioner, evasion, abuse, violation, defect or abnormality noted in the implementation of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Schemes framed thereunder.To attend prosecution of defaulters under section 14 of the Act and under section 406/409 of Indian Penal Code.To assist the Recovery Officer, in the matter of realisation of arrears.To ensure that establishment exempted under section 17 (1)/17 (IC)/ 17 (2A) of the Act is complying with the provisions of the Act and also the condition governing the grant of exemption stipulated by the appropriate Government. Similarly, where exemption is granted individually or as a class under Para 27/27 A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and/or under para 28 of the Employees' Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976 as the case may be to ensure that the employer in relation such employees complying with the conditions governing the grant of such exemption.To submit inspection reports, Narrative reports, survey reports and other prescribed reports .To serve summons/warrants on the accused in respect of prosecution cases launched to enable quick results in the larger interest of the Organisation.14. To carry out other instructions contained in manual for Enforcement officersPromotional aspectsTime prescribed from Post of EO to APFC and then APFC to RPFC-II and likewise1. Assistant PF Commissioner - 7 Years( In proposed Recruitment rules for APFC , it is 5 years)2. Regional PF Commissioner-II- 5 Years3. Regional PF Commissioner-I- 5 Years4. Additional Central PF Commissioner- 6 Years5. Additional Central PF Commissioner(HQ)- 4 Years6. Central PF Commissioner- Appointed on recommendation of Appointments Committee of CabinetPromotion also depends upon the vacancy at the time when promotion is due, thus the above time limits are not fixed.After 4 year of regular service, non functional upgradation to Level 9( GP 5400)Hope it helps.

1.Season 4 Episode 10The One With the Girl from PoughkeepsieRoss met a girl that lived in Poughkeepsie. He is sorry that she lives that far, but he finds her being great.Chandler: How can she be great if she is from Poughkeepsie? (no one amongst Ross, Joey and Phoebe laughs at the joke and gives him serious look).*after a pause*Chandler: That joke would’ve killed in Albany.​Explanation of joke:Vaudeville is a theatrical genre of variety entertainment. It was especially popular in the United States and Canada from the early 1880s until the early 1930s. A typical vaudeville performance is made up of a series of separate, unrelated acts grouped together.In the days of vaudeville, Poughkeepsie was a stop on the circuit (the acts would go from town to town by train). It was very 'backwater' and considered rural or not very urbane. Finding girl from there would be finding someone very backward or generally uneducated. Thus, how could she be 'great'?Albany was another stop on the circuit and somewhat in competition with Poughkeepsie for being backward (bear in mind, this would be in comparison to New York City).And, "killed them in Albany" is show business jargon for "make the people of Albany to laugh at the joke" as both Albany and Poughkeepsie were rivals in this sense.Thus Chandler says 'That joke would have killed in Albany.'2.Season 4 Episode 10The One With the Girl from PoughkeepsieHere Rachel wanted Chandler to set her up with one of the guys from his office.Chandler comes back with great news. He has found dozens of guys to be Rachel's blind date.Rachel: So, will I like any of these guys?Chandler: You know what, I’m gonna play the field just a little more.Rachel: Chandler!Chandler: Guys are signing over their 401-K’s to me.​Explanation of Joke:A 401(k) plan is a retirement plan offered to employee by the employer.With the help of this plan, every month some money will be deducted by the employer and this money will be invested by employer on behalf of the employee.Benefit of 401K is,this money which is invested is not taxed by the Government.Thus it is a good method to save money.After retirement this money can be used by the employee for his/her future life.So here guys are ready to give up their retirement money formed by the 401-K to Chandler just for him to fix them up with Rachel :)Source: Every Friend's Joke

Original question: Is California making the minimum wage $15 a good thing?The short answer is “no.” But not for the reasons you might think.I’m going to approach this from a different standpoint. You’ll see why it is the ONLY way to approach this question, in my opinion.I’m not going to argue minimum wage, I’m going argue taxes and take home pay.The current California minimum wage is $10.50/hr, which is a gross income of $21,840/yr (based on full time employment of 2,080 hrs/yr). After taxes, the take home pay would be approximately $18,564, based on total state/federal taxes of 15%. It should also be noted that the business that employs this person also pays payroll taxes that are slightly less than the $3,276 in taxes the employee pays. So, the state/federal government by taxing both the employee and the employer, will receive around $6,552/yr in total taxes.If/When the current minimum wage in California rises to $15/hr (California has reserved the right to stop the incremental increases), the employee’s gross income would jump to $31,200 (again, based on full time employment of 2,080 hrs/yr). However, state/federal income tax will now be around 22% instead of 15% (there is a change in the tax bracket with the increase in income). The employee will take home $24,336 of the $31,200, paying taxes of $6,864. The business that employs this person will now pay slightly less than the $6,864 in taxes the employee pays. So, the government will now receive approximately $13,728 from both the employee and employer.By raising the minimum wage, the government more than doubles the taxes received from the employee and employer from $6,552 to $13,728. That’s a $7,176 increase in taxes. It should also be noted that the employee DOES NOT double their take home pay.So….who is it that benefits from raising the minimum wage?If the government was TRULY INTERESTED in helping the minimum wage earner, they would not tax that same minimum wage earner. Let that wage earner keep the entire $31,200.Do you hear the government say this? Of course not. Why? Because they don’t care about the worker, the wage or their take home pay. The ONLY thing the government is concerned with is the amount of taxes it collects from that wage earner and that wage earners employer. They care about the increase in tax revenue that they can now spend on frivolous projects to enrich their cronies. A perfect example in California is the billion dollar high speed rail.If the wage earner is not earning enough to pay taxes at a level the government wants or needs, or if the the government has ‘maxed out’ the amount of tax they can legally collect from the business, what better way to collect more from both then to mandate an increase in the wage earners pay. Effectively, putting a gun to the head of the business owner and forcing them to pay the wage earner more, which now becomes taxable, but blaming the business owner for not caring about the employee. All whilepitting the employee against the business owner. And what does this do? It allows the government to collect more from BOTH the employee AND employer while at the same time convincing the employee it's looking out for that employee’s best interests.And, to be clear, has the government made so much as a peep about that wage earners take home pay? No. Why? Because the government doesn’t care. They only care about the taxes they can take from that same wage earner AND from the employer.What do you think will happen when the wage earner is making $15/hr and they complain about the additional taxes taken out? Do you think the government is going to reduce taxes? No. The government will say, “you should be paid MORE!” They just won’t finish that thought with ‘so we can tax you and your employer EVEN MORE…’You’ll never hear the government actually address the real issue, which is:Shouldn’t the goal be to allow that wage earner to keep their money?The answer:Absolutely!Has the government even addressed this fact? No way.But, here’s one way to do it.A negative tax putting money back into the pockets of the employees, or other tax credits or other means to allow workers to keep their earned money.The negative income tax, first introduced in the United States by libertarian economist, Milton Friedman, in 1962, is a form of basic income. It would ensure a minimum income level for those that qualified.The bottom line:Government needs to allow employees below a certain income level, to keep their income. Period.Additionally, the government needs to stop taxing small businesses for hiring these employees. The business should also be given a tax credit for employing people.The REAL problem with this? It would force the government to actually have to stop wasting money and run more efficiently.I’m not sure they can do that.Here is a real life story to illustrate my point:I have a young, Latina woman working for me. She is a single mother living at home and she’s a great employee, earning healthy raises every year (as a percentage of her wage it’s been 10% or greater every year). After this most recent raise, she asked me to cut her hours. I asked why. She told me that she now makes too much money to qualify for MediCal insurance for her daughterThe most recent raise was less than the cost of the MediCal so it was better to reduce her hours, and income, and keep the insurance. A net gain for her.The government, with the best of intentions (or not, depending on how you look at it), has made it almost impossible for this employee to ever get ahead. There is a real possibility that she will be unable to accept more money until her daughter is 18…12 years from now. That’s terrible and the government should be ashamed of themselves.This is the reality of taxes and welfare. The government creates dependent workers instead of giving them the freedom to become independent.It’s why our welfare state continues to grow. And grow. And grow.