Right now users are allowed to move from eNPS to POP. “Fine, POP has charges — so what?”

But what people eventually realise is:

• Users can move from eNPS to POP
• but cannot move BACK!!!
• Even after years
• Even if fully digital
• Even if no POP services are used

We request PFRDA to allow National Pension System (NPS) subscribers to freely migrate back from POP-based accounts to the direct eNPS model.

Today, many subscribers discover only later that once moved to a POP structure, there is no simple or officially supported way to return to eNPS/direct mode.

Why this is a serious issue

NPS is meant to be a low-cost retirement system for ordinary Indians, but POP-based accounts introduce recurring charges such as:

• Annual AUM-based POP charges
• POP trail commissions
• Contribution processing fees
• CRA maintenance charges
• GST and transaction-related fees

For example, a subscriber with:

• ₹40 lakh corpus
• ₹5,000 monthly contribution

Even a 0.20% annual AUM charge alone results in ~₹8,000 per year, excluding contribution and transaction charges. Over a 20–30 year horizon, this significantly reduces retirement wealth due to compounding impact.

Key concerns raised by users

• One-way migration trap: Easy movement from eNPS to POP, but no clear way back
• Lack of informed consent: Many users are not clearly informed about long-term cost impact
• Unnecessary intermediary layer: Most users manage everything digitally without using POP services
• Hidden long-term cost impact: Small annual charges accumulate into large retirement losses
• Contradiction to digital-first investing: In a fully digital system, mandatory intermediaries feel unnecessary for self-managed investors

This is similar to allowing investors to switch from direct mutual funds to regular plans, but not allowing them to return.

Our requests to PFRDA

1. Allow seamless migration from POP-based NPS back to eNPS/direct model
2. Enable a simple self-service option via CRA portal (Aadhaar OTP-based)
3. Introduce a cooling-off period for recent POP migrations
4. Mandate clear disclosure of AUM, trail, and contribution charges before approval
5. Ensure subscribers always retain the right to choose the lowest-cost direct NPS option

Final note

We are not asking for special benefits or removal of charges. We are only asking for choice, transparency, and fairness in managing our own retirement savings.

NPS should remain a truly low-cost, investor-first retirement system — not a one-way locked structure with lifelong intermediary charges.