A Parliamentary Standing Committee has declared the current ₹1,000 minimum monthly pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 wholly inadequate, urging urgent revision. Pensioners and trade unions are demanding ₹7,500 per month, citing rising costs of living. The panel flagged constitutional concerns under Articles 21 and 41, arguing that dignity in old age requires a meaningful pension. The EPS-95 scheme, administered by EPFO, covers organised sector workers but has not seen a substantive pension revision in years.

The Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 (EPS-95) operates under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is a defined-benefit social security scheme where both employer (8.33% of wages) and the Central Government (1.16%) contribute to create a pension corpus for organised-sector workers. The current minimum pension of ₹1,000/month was last fixed in 2014.

The constitutional angle is critical for CLAT PG. Article 21 (right to life with dignity) and Article 41 (directive to secure right to work and public assistance in old age) together form the basis for arguing that an inadequate pension violates constitutional guarantees. While Article 41 is a Directive Principle and not directly enforceable, the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of India has held that DPSPs must inform the interpretation of Part III rights. Thus, a pension so inadequate as to deny dignified existence can be challenged under Article 21.

Article 300A (right to property) is peripherally relevant — compulsory deductions from wages for a scheme that yields negligible returns can be examined as a property rights issue. For RBI Grade B and UPSC, the scheme's static parameters — contribution rates, eligibility (10 years of service), pensionable age (58 years), and the 1952 parent Act — are the primary test anchors.