Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Enforcement Officer / Accounts Officer (APFC and EO/AO) 2025 recruitment test. Transcribed from the Commission's own booklet (series A, PENA-A-PTS); answer worked out by our faculty — UPSC has published no answer key for this sitting. This question is in Part B. Answer last reviewed 25 August 2026.

Loss of one eye without complication, the other being normal, is considered as what kind of injury under Schedule I of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 ?

(a)Permanent total disablement
(b)Permanent partial disablement
(c)Temporary partial disablement
(d)Will be decided based on medical examination

Answer

Why

Correct — B, (b) Permanent partial disablement. Schedule I to the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is in two parts, and the injury named in the stem is in the second one.

PART I lists injuries deemed to result in PERMANENT TOTAL DISABLEMENT, each carrying a hundred per cent loss of earning capacity. It has six entries: loss of both hands or amputation at higher sites; loss of a hand and a foot; double amputation through leg or thigh, or amputation through leg or thigh on one side and loss of the other foot; loss of sight to such an extent as to render the claimant unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential; very severe facial disfigurement; and absolute deafness.

PART II lists injuries deemed to result in PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABLEMENT, each with a stated percentage of loss of earning capacity below a hundred. Under the heading 'Other injuries' it carries, at serial 25, 'Loss of one eye, without complication, the other being normal' — 40 per cent. Serial 26 is the neighbouring and slightly different injury, 'Loss of vision of one eye, without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other being normal' — 30 per cent, and serial 26A is 'Loss of partial vision of one eye' — 10 per cent.

So the classification is settled by the Schedule itself and no medical assessment is needed. The logic behind it is the logic of the whole Schedule: earning capacity is measured against the worker's residual ability to work, and a person who retains one normal eye retains most of it. The Act reserves total disablement for loss of sight severe enough to make work requiring eyesight impossible — the Part I entry — and treats the loss of one eye with the other normal as a partial loss quantified at 40 per cent.

The classification then feeds directly into the money. Under section 4(1)(c)(i), where permanent partial disablement results from an injury specified in Part II, the compensation is that percentage of what would have been payable for permanent total disablement. So this injury attracts 40 per cent of the permanent-total figure, which is itself 60 per cent of monthly wages multiplied by the relevant factor from Schedule IV.

Why the others are wrong

(a)Permanent total disablement — Permanent total disablement is Part I of Schedule I, and this injury is not in it. Part I has only six entries, and the only eye-related one is 'loss of sight to such an extent as to render the claimant unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential' — a far graver condition than the loss of one eye with the other normal. Section 2(1)(l) defines permanent total disablement as disablement that incapacitates an employee for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident, and provides that it is deemed to result from any injury specified in Part I or from any combination of Part II injuries whose aggregate percentage of loss of earning capacity is a hundred per cent or more. A single 40 per cent injury does not reach that threshold.
(c)Temporary partial disablement — Temporary partial disablement belongs to a different axis of the Act altogether. Section 2(1)(g) defines partial disablement as, where the disablement is of a TEMPORARY nature, disablement that reduces the earning capacity of an employee in the employment in which he was engaged at the time of the accident, and where it is of a PERMANENT nature, disablement that reduces his earning capacity in every employment he was capable of undertaking at the time. Temporary means the incapacity will pass; the loss of an eye will not. It also carries a different remedy — half-monthly payments under section 4(1)(d) for the duration of the disablement, rather than a lump sum computed as a percentage of the permanent-total figure. Both words in this option are wrong for this injury.
(d)Will be decided based on medical examination — This is the option a candidate picks who does not know that Schedule I exists, and it is wrong precisely because the Schedule removes the question from medical judgment. Section 4(1)(c) splits into two limbs: for an injury SPECIFIED in Part II of Schedule I, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is the one the Schedule itself states — here 40 per cent — and no assessment is required; only for an injury NOT specified in Schedule I is the percentage such proportion as is assessed by the qualified medical practitioner. Loss of one eye with the other normal is specified, so the second limb never comes into play. A medical practitioner still certifies the fact and the extent of the injury, but he does not fix its classification.

Concept

The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 makes an employer liable under section 3 for personal injury caused to an employee by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and section 4 converts that liability into a sum of money through a fixed scheme rather than a judicial assessment of loss. Four categories of consequence carry four formulae: death, 50 per cent of monthly wages multiplied by the relevant factor or ₹ 1,20,000, whichever is more; permanent total disablement, 60 per cent of monthly wages multiplied by the relevant factor or ₹ 1,40,000, whichever is more; permanent partial disablement, the percentage of the permanent-total figure that Part II of Schedule I attaches to the injury, or for an unlisted injury such proportion as a qualified medical practitioner assesses; and temporary disablement, half-monthly payments equal to 25 per cent of monthly wages. Schedule I is what makes the third category administrable. Part I fixes six injuries as 100 per cent losses; Part II tabulates dozens of injuries against percentages, running from amputation through the shoulder joint at 90 per cent down to the loss of a terminal phalanx of a toe at 1 per cent, with the eye injuries at 40, 30 and 10 per cent. Section 2(1)(l) adds that a combination of Part II injuries aggregating a hundred per cent or more is itself deemed permanent total disablement. Schedule IV then supplies the relevant factor by the employee's age, and section 4(1B) lets the Central Government notify the monthly wage figure to be used, currently ₹ 15,000.

EPFO's compensation questions divide neatly into classification items like this one and arithmetic items like the one that follows it on this page, and both depend on the Schedules. Classification items are easy marks for a candidate who has actually opened Schedule I, because they test nothing more than which Part an injury sits in — and they are guesswork for a candidate who has only read section 4. The trap laid here is the fourth option, which invites the reasonable-sounding view that a doctor decides; the whole point of a scheduled scheme is that for listed injuries nobody decides, because the Schedule already has.

Key facts

Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, Schedule I Part I lists six injuries deemed to result in permanent total disablement, each at 100 per cent loss of earning capacity.
Schedule I Part II lists injuries deemed to result in permanent partial disablement with their percentages; entry 25 is 'Loss of one eye, without complication, the other being normal' at 40 per cent.
Entry 26 of Part II is 'Loss of vision of one eye, without complications or disfigurement of eye-ball, the other being normal' at 30 per cent; entry 26A is 'Loss of partial vision of one eye' at 10 per cent.
Part I's only eye entry is loss of sight to such an extent as to render the claimant unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential.
Section 4(1)(c)(i) — for an injury specified in Part II, compensation is that percentage of what would have been payable for permanent total disablement.
Section 4(1)(c)(ii) — for an injury not specified in Schedule I, the percentage is as assessed by a qualified medical practitioner.
Section 2(1)(l) — permanent total disablement is deemed to result from an injury in Part I or from a combination of Part II injuries aggregating 100 per cent or more.
Section 2(1)(g) — partial disablement is temporary where it reduces earning capacity in the employment held at the time of the accident, and permanent where it reduces earning capacity in every employment the employee could then undertake.

Study next

Section 4 in full — the four heads of compensation and their formulaeSchedule IV — the relevant factors by completed years of ageSection 3 and the requirement that the accident arise out of and in the course of employment, with the exceptions in its provisoSchedule II — the list of persons who are employees for the purposes of the ActSchedule III and the occupational diseases in Parts A, B and CSection 4A — compensation to be paid when due, and the interest and penalty for default

Common traps

Reading any serious eye injury as total disablement. Part I requires loss of sight severe enough to prevent all work for which eyesight is essential.
Confusing temporary with permanent. Temporary disablement is compensated by half-monthly payments, not by a Schedule percentage.
Assuming a medical board fixes the percentage. It does so only for injuries NOT specified in Schedule I.
Mixing entry 25 with entry 26 — loss of the eye is 40 per cent, loss of vision of one eye is 30 per cent.

Expect either a classification item that names an injury and asks for its category, or a computational item that gives wages, age and a relevant factor. Both are answered from the Schedules, so read Schedule I Part I as a list of six and Part II as a percentage table with the eye and limb entries fixed, and keep Schedule IV's age-to-factor relationship in mind — the factor falls as age rises.

Related PYQs

EPFO_APFC_2023_Q29

What is the amount of compensation that is to be paid to an employee who is totally and permanently disabled as a result from injury under the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923? (Hints : Monthly wages drawn were ₹22,500 and relevant factor is 159·80)

(a) ₹ 14,38,200
(b) ₹ 23,97,000
(c) ₹ 21,57,300
(d) ₹ 7,67,040

Answer(a) ₹ 14,38,200

The APFC 2023 computation of compensation for total and permanent disablement under the same Act, using monthly wages and a relevant factor — the money that follows once an injury has been classified.

EPFO_APFC_2023_Q26

What is the time limit prescribed under the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 from the date of reference within which the Commissioner is required to dispose of the matter relating to compensation and intimate the decision to the employee?

(a) Six months
(b) One year
(c) Two months
(d) Three months

Answer(d) Three months

The APFC 2023 item on the time limit within which the Commissioner must dispose of a compensation matter and intimate the decision — the procedural side of the same Act.

Practice

practice — not a real PYQ
Under Schedule I to the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the loss of one eye without complication, the other being normal, carries a loss of earning capacity of :
- (a)20 per cent
- (b)30 per cent
- (c)40 per cent
- (d)100 per cent
Answer(c) 40 per cent
practice — not a real PYQ
Under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, where an injury is NOT specified in Schedule I, the percentage of loss of earning capacity for permanent partial disablement is :
- (a)Fixed at fifty per cent
- (b)Such proportion as is assessed by the qualified medical practitioner
- (c)Determined by the employer in consultation with the employee
- (d)Determined by the appropriate Government by notification
Answer(b) Such proportion as is assessed by the qualified medical practitioner

Why