Why govt shouldn't transfer idle PF money belonging to the poor to senior citizens' fund

The government’s itch to tinker with provident fund rules and provident fund money goes on unabated since February 2016. The recent one has manifested itself in a notification according to which if any provident fund account remains inoperative for seven years, the balance therein would be transferred to Senior Citizens fund after at least two attempts in a span of sixty days to reach out to the account holders through email or phone. [caption id=“attachment_2794000” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Reuters[/caption] At last count, there were as many as 15.84 crore provident fund accounts out of which 9.23 crore have attracted the ‘inoperative’ tag. The amount involved is staggering– – Rs 44,000 crore. The government cannot be so callous or blasé about workers’ money given the fact that bulk of these workers are iterant and financially unlettered. Their property ought not to be expropriated with such gay abandon. They can hardly be expected to have email accounts. Phone yes but even a couple of attempts on phone to establish contact does not give the government the right to appropriate their property when the PF law bars even courts from attaching their provident fund dues which is meant to be the only rain check for workers and their families post retirement. Advertisements must be prominently placed in media especially vernacular so that the fact of the existence of such property comes either to the notice of such itinerant workers or their close friends and relatives. The government launched a couple of years ago Universal Account Number (UAN) for members of Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO). UAN is designed to be a lifetime account cutting across employers one works with during one’s lifetime. The balance in one’s provident fund account is to move seamlessly from one employer to another without any hassles. The new employer would simply ask for the employee’s UAN and pick up the threads from where the previous employer left. It can be likened to permanent account number (PAN) for income tax purposes which is a unique number that serves numerous purposes including TDS, purchase of property etc. Instead of giving a wide publicity to UAN, the government has fallen for a cheap and easy gimmick. To be sure, taking care of senior citizens is not a gimmick but doing so by hurting another vulnerable segment of the society– -small, itinerant workers– -is a cruel gimmick. Indeed this move, coming as it does in the wake of the Indian government’s move to stop the US government from expropriating the social security balance of Indian workers exiting US before completing ten years of mandatory employment in the US so as to lay claim to such dues, is perplexing and inconsistent. The government has decided to intercede with the US government and prevail upon it to consider the ten year period in totality– – US job plus Indian job or job in any country indeed– -is sensible and in keeping with the spirit of UAN. Incidentally, the seven year criterion bears an unmistakable similarity with unclaimed dividend and deposits under the company law which are similarly expropriated to investor protection fund. But it is one thing to expropriate the funds of the relatively well-heeled and financially literate investors but quite another to do so of the poor, small itinerant workers. Moreover the provident fund accounts might be inoperative for seven years but they have by no means remained idle. They are at the disposal of the EPFO for investment and yield sizeable income unlike unclaimed dividend and deposits of investors. Playing Robin Hood is edifying to one’s ego. But even the Robin Hood principle is premised on robbing the rich and giving the spoils to the poor and not robbing one category of poor to reward another vulnerable segment.