Skip to main content

Translate

Understanding NPS and UPS Provisions Through Case Studies – Death and Disablement in Service


The National Pension System (NPS) and the Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) provide distinct benefits for Central Government employees in India, especially in cases of unforeseen events like death or disablement during service. To help employees and their families understand these provisions, we will analyze two real-world case studies based on the latest Office Memoranda (OMs):

  • DoPPW OM dated October 26, 2022 (CCS NPS Rules, 2021) for NPS

  • Finance Ministry Notification dated January 24, 2025 (UPS effective from April 1, 2025)

These case studies will clarify benefits, eligibility criteria, and potential financial outcomes under both schemes.

Case Study 1: NPS – Death of an Employee in Service

Employee Profile

  • Name: Rajesh Kumar

  • Age: 42

  • Service Duration: 15 years (Joined on January 1, 2010)

  • Basic Pay: ₹80,000/month (including Dearness Allowance)

  • NPS Contribution: 10% (₹8,000/month) by Rajesh, 14% (₹11,200/month) by the government

  • Accumulated Corpus: ₹45 lakh (by April 2025)

  • Family: Wife (Meena, 38) and two minor children

  • Event: Rajesh dies in a road accident on April 15, 2025.

Provisions Applied (NPS)

  • Under the CCS NPS Rules, 2021 (Rule 10), since Rajesh did not opt for CCS (Pension) Rules, the NPS provision applies.

  • Corpus Disbursement: The entire ₹45 lakh is paid as a lump sum to his nominee (Meena).

  • No Mandatory Annuity Purchase: The amount can be fully withdrawn without buying an annuity, as per PFRDA (Exits and Withdrawals) Regulations, 2015.

  • Tax-Free Benefit: The ₹45 lakh is tax-free under Section 10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

  • Additional Benefits: A death gratuity of ₹9.6 lakh (12 times last pay) under CCS Rules.

  • No Family Pension: Meena must invest the corpus for regular income, as NPS doesn’t provide an automatic pension.

Family Outcome

  • Meena receives ₹45 lakh (NPS corpus) + ₹9.6 lakh (gratuity) = ₹54.6 lakh.

  • If she invests ₹20 lakh in an annuity (at 6%), she could get ₹10,000/month, leaving ₹34.6 lakh for other needs.

Alternative Scenario: If Rajesh Had Opted for CCS (Pension) Rules

  • Meena would receive a family pension of ₹40,000/month (50% of ₹80,000) with dearness relief.

  • However, she wouldn’t receive the ₹45 lakh lump sum.

Key Takeaway

NPS offers flexibility with a lump sum payout, making it ideal for families needing immediate funds. However, securing a steady income requires proactive financial planning.


Case Study 2: UPS – Disablement of an Employee in Service

Employee Profile

  • Name: Priya Sharma

  • Age: 35

  • Service Duration: 10 years (Joined on April 1, 2015)

  • Basic Pay: ₹60,000/month (including Dearness Allowance)

  • UPS Contribution: 10% (₹6,000/month) by Priya, 18.5% (₹11,100/month) by the government

  • Option: Opted for UPS on April 1, 2025

  • Family: Husband (Amit, 37) and one child

  • Event: Priya suffers a spinal injury in June 2025, leading to permanent total disablement and discharge from service.

Provisions Applied (UPS)

  • Under UPS provisions (Finance Ministry Notification, January 24, 2025), Priya qualifies for an invalid pension.

  • Monthly Pension: ₹30,000/month (50% of last 12 months’ average basic pay).

  • Inflation Adjustment: Dearness relief (5% annually), increasing the pension over time.

  • No Lump Sum Payout: Unlike NPS, UPS doesn’t allow corpus withdrawal; benefits are pension-based.

  • Additional Benefit: ₹6 lakh disability gratuity (10 times last pay) under CCS Rules.

  • Post-Death Scenario: If Priya passes away later, her husband Amit will receive a family pension of ₹18,000/month (60% of Priya’s pension).

Family Outcome

  • Priya gets ₹30,000/month (pension) + ₹6 lakh (gratuity).

  • The pension provides lifelong financial security, ensuring Amit is also covered after Priya.

Alternative Scenario: If Priya Had Stayed in NPS

  • She would receive a corpus of ₹25 lakh (assumed after 10 years of service).

  • 40% annuity purchase: ₹10 lakh, yielding only ₹5,000/month (assuming 6% annuity rate).

  • 60% lump sum: ₹15 lakh for immediate use.

  • Less stable income compared to UPS’s guaranteed pension.

Key Takeaway

UPS provides lifelong financial stability with a guaranteed pension, ideal for long-term security.


Resolving Common Doubts

What Happens if No Nominee Exists?

  • NPS: The corpus goes to legal heirs per succession laws (e.g., Hindu Succession Act).

  • UPS: No corpus exists; the family pension continues to the spouse until cessation.

Can the Family Switch Schemes After Death/Disablement?

  • No, the scheme at the time of the event is final.

What if Service is Less than 10 Years?

  • NPS: Full corpus paid (e.g., ₹20 lakh after 5 years), or CCS pension if opted.

  • UPS: Proportionate pension or gratuity per CCS Rules.

Is UPS Always Better for Family Security?

  • Not necessarily. UPS ensures a pension, but NPS’s lump sum allows financial flexibility.


Comparison and Conclusion

AspectNPS (Rajesh’s Case – Death in Service)UPS (Priya’s Case – Disablement in Service)
EventDeath in serviceDisablement in service
Benefit₹45 lakh lump sum + ₹9.6 lakh₹30,000/month pension + ₹6 lakh
Family SecurityFlexible, investment-dependentGuaranteed ₹18,000/month family pension later
FlexibilityHigh (lump sum)Low (pension-only)

NPS is ideal for those who prefer liquidity, as seen in Rajesh’s case—his family received ₹54.6 lakh but had no guaranteed pension. UPS offers lifelong financial security, evident in Priya’s case—she gets ₹30,000/month for life.

Ultimately, employees must weigh their priorities: immediate financial control (NPS) or lifelong stability (UPS). Understanding these provisions helps in making informed decisions for a secure future.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Criticism of Rosenstein's theory of Big Push of Balanced Development

Some of the criticism of Rosenstein's theory of the Big Push method of balanced development is as follows: 1. Big Push Theory can not be effectively adopted in developing countries a lack sufficient funds, skilled labor, and dynamic entrepreneurship abilities. 2. Maintaining coordination between different sectors is a big challenge, According to H. Myint, It is very difficult to coordinate various plans in developing countries. 3. Developing economy is basically an agrarian economy whereas Rodan's theory of Big Push theory emphasizes on investment in industries which is troublesome in the first stage in many countries that lack basic infrastructure, skilled labor, and raw materials.  4. The theory of the big push method of balanced development is dependent on indivisibility. Too much indivisibility will pose practical problems in the process of globalization which lay stress on flexibility and reforms. 5. Rosenstein Rodan has given limited importance to the role of internationa...

Ranger Nurkse's theory of balanced growth

R. Nurkse's theory of balanced growth believes that underdeveloped countries are suffering from the  vicious circle of poverty, which is determinantal to economic development in these countries.  According to him "a circular constellation of forces, tending to act and react upon one another in such   a way as to keep a country in a state of poverty." The vicious circle of poverty adversely affects  the accumulation of capital in economically underdeveloped countries. If this vicious circle of poverty is broken then development will follow.  According to Nurkse "the expansion of the market can be realized only through a process of balanced growth, where people in different countries,  working with new and better tools, become each other's consumers. The vicious cycle works on both the demand and supply sides. On the supply side, there is a small capacity to save due to a low level  of income, the low level of income results in low productivity whic...