Opposition leaders target Centre over EPFO rule changes

By Admin

16 Oct, 2025

In a heated political exchange, leaders from multiple Opposition parties, including the Congress and Trinamool Congress (TMC), sharply criticized the Union government on Wednesday (October 15, 2025) over the recent amendments to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) rules. The new provisions mandate a 25% minimum balance and extend the waiting period for fund withdrawal after unemployment   decisions that have sparked widespread concern among salaried employees and retirees.

Opposition Criticizes “Cruel” and “Unfair” Changes

Manickam Tagore of the Congress and Saket Gokhale of the TMC took to social media to voice their discontent, alleging that the Narendra Modi-led government was punishing the salaried class for its “mishandling of the economy.” Both leaders urged Union Labour Minister Mansukh Mandaviya to roll back the newly introduced EPFO provisions.

Tagore described the move as “cruelty,” arguing that it would “finish the lives of pensioners” who depend on their provident fund for survival. Gokhale went further, calling the amendments “shocking and ridiculous,” and accused the government of anticipating a surge in unemployment due to its “terrible economic policies.”

“Who benefits from this, Mr. Modi? Certainly not the workers,” Tagore wrote. “Imagine a worker who loses his job or a retiree waiting for years to access his hard-earned savings   while the Govt writes off lakhs of crores for its crony friends. This is not reform, this is robbery.”

Details of the New EPFO Rules

According to the revised scheme, unemployed EPFO members will now be able to withdraw their funds after 12 months of unemployment instead of the earlier two-month period. Additionally, pension fund withdrawals can be made only after 36 months of unemployment. The new policy also introduces a mandatory 25% minimum balance that cannot be withdrawn until retirement.

Gokhale criticized this move, stating, “Earlier, on losing your job, you could withdraw your EPF balance after two months of unemployment. That minimum period has now shockingly been increased to one year. For withdrawing your own money, you now need to be unemployed for a full year. You can withdraw the pension component only after three years   and 25% of your balance remains locked for your entire career.”

Government’s Response: “Consultative and Balanced Decision”

Responding to the Opposition’s claims, the Union government released a fact sheet rejecting the allegations as “blatantly false and misleading.” The Centre clarified that the rule changes were approved after extensive consultation with stakeholders   including employees, employers, and state representatives   during a meeting of the Central Board of Trustees (CBT), which is chaired by the Labour Minister.

The government emphasized that the decision was made to strike a balance between providing flexibility for withdrawals and ensuring long-term financial security for workers. “The decision of the CBT enables a member to have a fine balance between liberal withdrawal options for various exigencies and personal needs by allowing the withdrawal of 75% of the funds without documentation, while leaving a decent corpus available at retirement,” the statement said.

Government Counters Unemployment Claims

The Centre also dismissed Opposition claims about rising unemployment, citing data that “over 1.29 crore workers were added to payrolls in 2024–25.” It further stated that the unemployment rate dropped to 3.2% in 2023–24, compared to 6% in 2017–18, refuting suggestions of an economic crisis.

The fact sheet clarified that “workers can withdraw 100% of their eligible balance (excluding the 25% minimum balance)” after 12 months of continuous unemployment. The government insisted that the changes were designed to protect long-term savings and prevent premature depletion of retirement funds.

The Debate Continues

While the government stands firm on its position, the Opposition shows no signs of backing down. Critics argue that the revised rules will make life harder for the unemployed and delay access to vital savings, while the government insists the policy promotes financial discipline and long-term security.

As the debate intensifies, the controversy underscores the broader tension between fiscal prudence and worker welfare   a balance the government claims to have achieved, but one the Opposition insists has come at the expense of India’s salaried class.