The EPF Scheme, 1952 and the EPS, 1995 no longer exist

Did anything happen to my money?

No. Every number on your payslip and in your passbook is the same one it was on 29 June 2026 and the day before it.

• 12% from you and 12% from your employer, on wages as the Codes define them. Unchanged — and now fixed by Employees' Provident Funds Scheme 2026, para 18(2) rather than by a paragraph of the 1952 Scheme.
• 8.33% of wages, up to a pension wage of ₹15,000 a month, diverted out of your employer’s share to the pension scheme, where it builds a pension rather than a balance. Unchanged, and now at Employees' Pension Scheme 2026, para 4(1).
• Statutory liability capped at a monthly wage of ₹15,000, though most employers contribute on full wages. Unchanged.
• Your account, your UAN, your accrued interest and your claims. Untouched. Anything done under the old schemes is carried across by the savings in section 164(2) of the Code.

If you came here worried, that is the answer and you can stop reading. The rest of this page is about the paper — which matters if you are quoting a rule to your employer, writing a policy, or trying to work out why two websites cite two different laws for the same 12%.

What exactly was superseded?

Three schemes, on one day, by three separate notifications in the Gazette. Each is expressed to be in supersession of the scheme it replaces, and each came into force on publication rather than on a later appointed day.

The three notifications are on the EPFO’s own copy of the 2026 Provident Funds Scheme. The Code’s section 15(1) is the power they were made under, and it is one of the provisions the government brought into force by S.O. 5319(E), 21 November 2025 — which is what made this possible.

Is the EPF & MP Act, 1952 repealed?

No. This is the detail that turns a tidy story into an accurate one, and it is the single most common mistake in the Labour-Code explainers.

Section 164(1) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 lists nine enactments it repeals. The commencement notification did not commence all nine. It commenced, in its own words, “Items 1 and 2 and items 4 to 9 of sub-section (1) of section 164”. Item 3 is the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — the one enactment left out, and left out deliberately enough that it is the only gap in the list.

So the 1952 Act stands. Its schemes do not. Both statements are true at once, which is why a sentence like “EPF has moved to the Labour Codes” is wrong in one direction and “nothing has changed” is wrong in the other.

The same notification did something else worth knowing. Of section 16 — the Code’s own contribution section, the one that would have set the provident-fund rate — it commenced only clause (c) of sub-section (1), the deposit-linked-insurance clause. The provident-fund rate at 16(1)(a) and the pension diversion at 16(1)(b) have never been brought into force. That is why the rate this site cites is a paragraph of a 2026 Scheme and not a section of the Code.

Why does every EPF page still cite the EPF Scheme, 1952?

Because it governed for seventy-four years, and because nothing announced its end loudly. The replacement arrived as three gazette notifications on a single day in the middle of a staggered, multi-year commencement of four Labour Codes. There was no consolidated “from today” press release for a payroll team to circulate.

The result is that a search for “EPF contribution rule” returns page after page citing paragraph 26 or paragraph 26A or paragraph 29 of the 1952 Scheme — a document that was superseded on 29 June 2026. The figures those pages give are usually right. The authority they give for them is a ghost.

And it is not only commercial calculators. The Ministry of Labour and Employment’s own Compliance Handbook for Employers describes section 16 of the Code as operative, when the gazette notification did not commence the clause it means. We do not think that resolves against us — a notification governs over a handbook, and the handbook says so itself — but it is the strongest document pointing the other way, so it is quoted in full below rather than left out.

What should I cite instead?

There is no single answer, and that is the whole difficulty. Gratuity changed statute. EPF did not — but its schemes were replaced. And the definition of “wages” that decides what both are computed on now comes from a third instrument again. Anyone writing one sentence to cover all three gets at least one of them wrong.

The tax side has its own answer again: gratuity is a deduction from salary under the Income-tax Act, 2025, not an exemption, which our section mapper entry for it sets out with the sub-clauses.

What does the 50% wage floor do to my provident fund?

This is the change that actually moves money, and it is a year older than the schemes. From 21 November 2025 the Code on Wages, 2019 and the Code on Social Security, 2020 define “wages” with a proviso: where the components the statute excludes come to more than half your whole remuneration, the excess is added back. Your provident fund is computed on that wage — whatever your payslip calls basic.

Worked below on the example our gratuity and EPF calculator opens with: ₹75,000 a month with basic stated at 40%, which is a very ordinary pre-Code payslip. The statute reads that basic as 50% — ₹37,500 rather than ₹30,000.

That is ₹1,800 a month more into the fund — ₹21,600 over a year — and it comes out of the same pay, so it is a smaller credit to your bank account and a larger one to your provident fund on the same day. The same floor lifts gratuity on 6 years of service by ₹25,962.

A calculator that asks for “your basic salary” and multiplies is doing arithmetic on a figure the statute no longer accepts. That is a different defect from the citation one, and it is the more expensive of the two.

How confident are you that the 2026 Scheme is what governs the rate?

Medium — our own grade, published beside the claim rather than kept in a note. It is the only proposition on this page that is a reading rather than a quotation, and the honest thing is to say which is which.

The facts underneath it are not in doubt. Each is a sentence in a government document: the commencement notification’s list of what it did and did not bring into force; section 164(1)’s list of nine enactments; the three notifications of 29 June 2026; and Employees' Provident Funds Scheme 2026, para 18(2), which fixes the rate in terms.

What joins them into an answer is ours: EPF now runs under the Code on Social Security, 2020 read with the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 2026 — but the EPF & MP Act, 1952 was never actually repealed, and the Code's own rate clause has never been commenced. No government publication says that in so many words. It is the reading we would defend, and it is a reading.

If you are an employer taking a compliance position, read the documents rather than taking ours. They are on egazette.gov.in, indiacode.nic.in and epfindia.gov.in, and every dataset behind this site is listed with its verification date on the methodology page.

Where do I check my own numbers?

Put your pay and your payslip’s basic into the gratuity and EPF calculator: it computes both wages, shows the gap, and prints the paragraph of the 2026 Scheme each figure comes from. The CTC to in-hand calculator applies the same 50% floor across the whole payslip, and the section mapper answers the tax half — which 1961-Act section became which section of the Income-tax Act, 2025. What we read, when we last read it, and where we are still unsure is on the methodology page.