BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 27^th MAY 2015

PRESENT

          SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :  HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

          SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR      :   MEMBER 

     COMMON ORDERS IN

C.C.Nos. 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 of 2014

         (CC No.336 to 361/2014: Admitted on 20.09.2014)

                 (CC No.443 to 471/2014: Admitted on 06.12.2014)

CC.No.336/2014

    Shri K.Venkatram Bhat,

    S/o. Govinda Bhat,

    Aged about 70 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Kalkaje House, Post Kolnad,

    Bantwal Taluk,

D.K. District – 574 323.                                 …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.337/2014

    Shri K.Mahabala,

    S/o. K.Vasappa Devadiga,

    Aged about 75 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    House No.9-144, Nekkermar,

    Gorigudd, Kankanadi,

Mangalore – 02.                                           …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.338/2014

    Shri Vishwanath Purusha,

    S/o. Krishna Purusha,

    Aged about 65 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Near S.V.S. Temple, Door No.19.25,

    Thyagaraja Road,

    Panemangalore – 574 231.                                      …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.339/2014

    Shri A.E. Kunhiraman,

    S/o. E.Parameshwaran,

    Aged about 68 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Kajarkatta House,

    Renjilady Village & Post,

    Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District.          …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.340/2014

    Shri B.H.Mohammad,

    S/o. Hussain Musaliyar,

    Aged about 65 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Malenad Manzil, Post:Guruvayankere,

    Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District.                           …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.341/2014

    Shri Krishna Kamat,

    S/o. Ram Kamat,

    Aged about 68 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Parashuram Nilaya, Post:Guruvayankere,

Belthangadi Taluk – 574 217,

    Dakshina Kannada District.                             …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.342/2014

    Shri K.Koosappa Gowda,

    S/o. Shivanna Gowda,

    Aged about 63 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Mathrushree Nilaya, Shekmalai House,

Ariyadka Post, Puttur Taluk.

    Dakshina Kannada District.                             …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.343/2014

    Shri Henry Lasrado,

    S/o. Albert Lasrado,

    Aged about 71 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Peddamale House & Post,

    Mangalore Taluk – 574 194,

    Dakshina Kannada District.                             …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.344/2014

    Shri I Shivaramagowda,

    S/o. Sheshappagowda,

    Aged about 65 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Shivakrupa House, Ramakunja Post,

    Koilagram Village, Puttur Taluk,

    Dakshina Kannada District.                             …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.345/2014

    Shri Gopal Shetty,

    S/o. Ramanna Shetty,

    Aged about 71 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Bangama Nilaya, Nekkraie Marga,

    Kadaka Puttur, D.K. District,

    Pin Code – 574 220.                                      …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.346/2014

    Shri Shamanna Naik,

    S/o. Annappa Naik,

    Aged about 67 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Menadu House, Mooda Nadugodu Grama,

    Via Bantwal Taluk,

    Dakshina Kannada District.                             …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.347/2014

    Shri K. Chandrahasa,

    S/o. Damodar Poojary,

    Aged about 68 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Krishna Krupa, Adyar Dhota House,

    Adyar Post & Village,

    Mangalore – 575 009.                                    …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.348/2014

    Shri D.Shreedhar Devadiga,

    S/o. Gurappa Devadiga,

    Aged about 66 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Near HVH Temple, Bantwal Post,

    Dakshina Kannda District – 574 211.               …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.349/2014

    Shri M. Abubakkar,

    S/o. Idinabba,

    Aged about 71 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    No.14-9-15 ‘B’ Mudda, Thalipadu House,

    B.C. Road, Jodu Marga,

    Bantwal Tauk, D.K. District,

    Pin Code – 574 219.                                      …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.350/2014

    Shri Narayan Shetty,

    S/o. Late Manku Shetty,

    Aged about 69 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Kallandadka House, Kabaka Post,

    Puttur Taluk, D.K. Dist – 574 220.                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.351/2014

    Shri G. Hussain.

    S/o. Mohammad,

    Aged about 67 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Near Telephone Exchange Office,

    Gurupura, Mangalore,

    Pin Code – 574 145.                                      …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.352/2014

    Shri S. Abbas,

    S/o. M.Moidinabba,

    Aged about 65 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Munerr Manzil, Post Pudu,

    Bantwal Taluk, D.K. Dist.

    Pin Code – 574 169.                                      …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.353/2014

    Shri N.Sadashiv Alva,

    S/o. Chikkayya Alva,

    Aged about 75 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Prala Hosamane, Kannur Village & Post,

    Mangalore.

    Pin Code – 575 007.                                      …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.354/2014

    Shri U.Vasu Shetty,

    S/o. Anthappa Shetty,

    Aged about 68 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Dompada Palke,

    Post Ujire, Belthangady Taluk.                        …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.355/2014

    Shri P.Bheema Bhatt,

    S/o. P.Narayan Bhatt,

    Aged about 74 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Kumara Nilaya, Perladka Post,

    Puttur, D.K. District – 574 201.                       …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.356/2014

    Shri T.K. Rajashekhar,

    S/o. Kariyappa,

    Aged about 68 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Ganesh Nilaya, Modarampu Post,

    B.C. Road, Bantwal.                                       …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.357/2014

    Shri Gangadhar Shetty,

    S/o. Jarappoa Shetty,

    Aged about 71 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Devi Krupa House, Kanapulu Area & Village,

    Kolilu Post, Bantwal Taluk,

    D.K. District.                                                 …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.358/2014

    Shri K.Damodhar,

    S/o. Ramaiah,

    Aged about 75 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Lobo Compound, II Cross,

    Lower Bendoor, Mangalore – 2.                      …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.359/2014

    Shri S.Upendra Rao,

    S/o. S.Ramrao,

    Aged about 64 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Durga Prasad House, Palaneeru Road,

    Post: Kavoor, Mangalore.                               …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.360/2014

    Shri K.M. Mathews,

    S/o. Late K.C. Matai,

    Aged about 69 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Door No.2/99, Eden, Maryhill,

    Guru Nagar, Konchady Post,

    Mangalore, Pin Code – 575 008.                     …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.361/2014

    Shri B.Jarappa Poojary,

    S/o. Hooavayya Poojary,

    Aged about 76 years,

    Occ: Retired Employee,

    Kammaje House, Bondanthila Village & Post,

    Mangalore.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.443/2014

Shri. K. Seetarama Alva

S/o Subbaih Alva

Age: 67 years, Occ: Retired Employee,

Mathroshree Nivas, Vasuki Nagar, D.No.9-69/3(3)

Ukkur Bajar Post, Mangalore.

Karnataka.

                                                                       …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.444/2014

Shri. Karumbaiah P.B.

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

C/o Ivan Rodrigues A4, Ujawal Apartm,

Kadri Road, Opp: Kedri Syndicate Bank,

Mangalore. Karnataka.                                 …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.445/2014

Shri. Sridhar Chowta

S/o Shankappa chowta,

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Mathra Shree Nilaya, Post Madankap,

Bantwal Tq: & Dist: DK Pin Code-574219,

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.446/2014

Shri. Sridhar Naik K

S/o K. Krishna Naik

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

D.No.4-108, Samrudhi, Near Anugraha,

Dandekeri, YeyyadiPadau, Mangalore,

Dist: DK Karnataka.                                     …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.447/2014

Shri. T.B. Shridhar T.B. Ramachandra

Age: 60 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Shree Nidhi House, Near Railway, Brudge Harady,

Puttur, Dist: DK  Karnataka.                         …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.448/2014

Shri. A.Devappa Gowda

S/o Balanna Gowda

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Ambulla Mane, Charvaka Post,

Puttur Tq, Dist: DK Pin Code 574328

   Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.449/2014

Shri.  Narayan Poojary

S/o Nakkuru Poojary

Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

H.No. 4-142, Maruthi Nilaya, Borugudda,

Bondanthila, Mangalore, Dist: DK

Karnataka Pin Code 575029.                         …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.450/2014

Shri.   Devu Poojary

S/o Nakkur Poojary

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Bettu House, Bondanthila Post & Village,

Mangalore, Dist: DK

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.451/2014

Shri.   M. Uggappa Shetty

S/o Appajji Shetty

Age: 63 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Kambila House, Ananthady Post,

Bantwal, Mangalore, Dist: DK

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.452/2014

Shri.   Sanjeeva K

S/o Pakeera, Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Ekkoor Kalkar, Near Railway Bridge,

Bajal Post, Mangalore, Dist: DK

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.453/2014

Shri.   A.Dinesh Gowda

S/o Chennappa Gowda, Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Amchinadka Post Kavu,

Puttur, Tq: Dist: DK Pin Code 574223

    Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

    CC.No.454/2014

Shri.   I Babuchandra

S/o Koraga Moolya, Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Kavya Shree Nivas, D.No. 6-2011, Iddya,

Surathkal, Mangalore, Dist: DK Pin Code 575015

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.455/2014

Shri.   V.Vasudeva Purusha

S/o V. Manku Purusha

Age: 71 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Parijatha House, Battagudda, Bejai,

Mangalore. Pin Code-575004

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.456/2014

Shri.   S. Ramegowda

S/o Somappagowda

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Sherkal House, Bhare Bettu Post,

Bantwal Tq: Dist: DK

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.457/2014

Shri.   B. Ananda Alva

S/o B. Shankar Alva

Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Paithadi Palathadka House, Post: Manikra,

Sulla, Dist: DK Pin Code 574311

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.458/2014

Shri.   M.Somappa Rai

S/o M.Ramaiah Rai

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Govinda Moole House, Valamogaru Vill,

Darbethadka Post, Puttur Tq: Dist: DK

Pin Code 574202, Karnataka.                          …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.461/2014

Shri.   K.Shivappa Moolya

S/o Venkappa Moolya

Age: 63 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Vitla Alangar House.

Post Vitla, Bantwal,

Dist: DK.  Karnataka.                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.462/2014

Shri. K.Narsimha Poonja

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Kunjathara Majalu House,

Ariadka Post & Village,

Puttur, Dist: DK Pin Code 574223.

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.463/2014

Shri. K.Varadaraya Nayak,

S/o Subraya Nayak

Age: 63 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Maindanadka House, Post: Badagannur,

Puttur, Dist: DK

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.464/2014

Shri. B.Mahammed

S/o Iddinabbi Beary

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Near Govt High Primary School,

Kalladka Post, Bantwal Tq: Dist: DK

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.465/2014

Shri. Ramakantha Achari

S/o Thimmappa Achari

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Opp Akarshan Industrial Area, Mvkrampadi Aryapu,

Post: Puttur, Dist: DK Pin Code 574210,

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.466/2014

Shri. V.S Yousuf

S/o A.Iddinabbi Beary

Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Hill Sight Cottage Post,

Bantwal Tq, Dist DK

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.467/2014

Shri. A.Krishna Bhat

S/o Subramanya Bhat

Age: 60 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Opp Akarshan Industrial Area, Mvkrampadi Aryapu,

Post: Puttur, Dist: DK Pin Code 574210

Karnataka.

                                                                       …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.468/2014

Shri. V.Prabhakar Pai

S/o C.Krishna Pai

Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Maindanadka House, Post Badagannur,

Puttur, Dist: DK

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.469/2014

Shri. P. Shabbir Saheb Palthadi,

S/o P.Kashimsaheb

Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Paithadi Palathadka House, Post: Manikra,

Sulla, Dist: DK. Pin Code 574311

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.470/2014

Shri. P.Sundar Shetty,

S/o Narayan Shetty

Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

D.No.1-112, Santhasa Village, Kunjathbail,

Devi Nagar, Mangalore, Dist: DK. 575015,

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

CC.No.471/2014

Shri. K. Ananda,

S/o Jinnappa Poojary,

Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Parantaje Hosamane, Lalla Post,

Belthangady, Dist: DK

Karnataka.                                                   …… COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainants in all the above cases:

                                                                 Sri.R.P. Koparde)

       VERSUS

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,

Regional Office,

Silva Road, High Lands,

Mangalore.                                          ………. OPPOSITE PARTY   

                                                                 in all the above cases

(Advocate for the Opposite Party in all the above cases:

Sri.J.R. Naik)

* * * * * *                                         

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.       The above complaints are filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.  For the sake of convenience and in order to save the time, the common order is taken up in the above cases.

The brief facts of the cases are as under:

The Complainants in the below mentioned cases i.e., in complaint No.336 to 361, 443 to 450, 452 to 458, 461, 464 to 467, 469 to 471 of 2014 were working in KSRTC and Complainants in complaint No.451, 462, 463 and 468 of 2014 were working in SCDCC Bank.  They joined and retired from the services on attaining the age of superannuation as follows:-

However, it is stated that, in the year 1971 the department of Opposite Party introduced the pension scheme namely Family Pension Scheme 1971 w.e.f. 01.03.1971.  The Complainants were opted to join the Family Pension Scheme introduced by the Opposite Party department and the family pension account numbers were allotted to them.  Thereafter the employer deducted the monthly subscription of the said scheme from the monthly salary of the Complainants and were remitted to the office of the Opposite Party.

          In the year 1995, the department of Opposite Party repealed the Family Pension Scheme 1971 and introduced the new scheme known as ‘Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995’ with effect from 15.11.1995.  The Complainants were consented to transfer the amount accumulated in the old scheme and continued in new Scheme.

          After retirement of the Complainants, the employer sent all the service records and other details to the Opposite Party.  Thereafter the Opposite Party settled the monthly pension under different PPO numbers and fixed monthly pension to the Complainants as mentioned above.

          It is stated that, in the year 2013 and 2014, it came to the knowledge of the Complainants through one of their colleagues that there are errors in the calculation of pension fixed to them.  It also came to their knowledge that pension paid to them are lesser one that the Complainants are entitled. Immediately the Complainants have given representations to the Opposite Party for the revision of the monthly pension but the Opposite Party failed to comply the same.

It is stated that, as per the provisions of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995, the monthly pension is calculated for two different periods separately i.e., past service and present service.  The paragraph No.12 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 the monthly pension means aggregate of the past service and present pension benefits.  But the Opposite Party has not followed the provisions of the Law and made erroneous calculation without applying minimum assured benefits.  Therefore, it is stated that, the Complainants are entitled for minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present services separately.

It is further stated that, the Opposite Party failed to fix the minimum assured pension for past services and present services even though provision of law are very clear in respect of giving separate minimum assured pension for both the past service and present service.  It is stated that, after the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and also the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Commission, Bangalore, the Opposite Party amended the provision and thereby tried to curtail the facility which amounts to unfair trade practice and the said amendment is not applicable to the Complainants because no such provision was there at the time of accepting the membership of the Complainant.  It is necessary to settle the pension as per the terms and conditions existed at the time of accepting the membership of the Complainants.  It is further stated that, as per paragraph No.10(2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995, it is necessary to give two years weightage period to the members who superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more.  But in the present case, Opposite Party failed to consider the same.  It is stated that, all the Complainants were rendered more than 20 years of pensionable services and they are entitled for the benefit of weightage of two years.

          As per the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995, it is necessary to give annual relief by making valuation of Employee’s Pension Fund but from the year 2001, no such valuations are made by the Opposite Party and no reliefs were given to the Complainants.  Therefore, the Complainants are entitled for the annual relief from the date of retirement till this date as per the provisions of the Scheme.  All the Complainants filed their memo of calculation in respect of pension along with their respective complaints and stated that the Opposite Party indulged in unfair trade practice and also the service rendered by them amounts to deficiency, hence the above complaints filed by the Complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay the following reliefs:-

1. To revise the monthly pension by extending the minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service with effect from the date of the retirement of the Complainants and to pay arrears with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
2. To revise the monthly pension by extending the weightage of two years with effect from the date of the retirement of the Complainants and to pay arrears with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
3. To pay the arrears accumulated by the Complainants till the date of filing the complaints including interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
4. To give annual relief from 2001 to till this financial year and to pay the arrears with interest at 12% p.a.
5. Pass the order to continue to pay the monthly pension to the Complainants as per the scheme in revised scale and also claimed such other and further reliefs.

II.      Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD in all the above cases. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version. The Opposite Party i.e., Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner raised a contention that Complainants were member of erstwhile Family Pension Scheme 1971 subsequently replaced by the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995.  The Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 promulgated the Employees’ Pension Scheme to come into force on 16.11.1995 replacing the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme 1971.  The Complainants are undisputedly members of the Employees’ Pension Scheme.  The Complainants were regularly drawing their sanctioned monthly pension of different amounts under PPO No.KN/MLR/20145. The Opposite Party denied the deficiency of service and stated that the revision of the monthly pension was promptly acted upon.  The pension i.e., eligible to a member of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 is calculated under the provisions of paragraph 12 of the said scheme and submitted the calculation of the revised pension of the Complainants and with this version and stated that there is no separate minimum assured pension for past service or present service in the scheme.  The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the Channakeshavulu case quoted by the Complainants is of no relevance here as the said judgment was issued prior to the amendment of paragraph 12 of the Scheme by the Government of India vide GSR 431 (E) dated 15^th June 2007 that was deemed to have come into force from the date the Scheme came into force, i.e., from 16^th November 1995.  The said amendment has not been struck down by any High Court or the Supreme Court.  The amendment of the Scheme retrospectively has been done by the Central Government in pursuance of the powers vested with it under Section 7 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and as such is an exercise of sovereign authority of the State and in no way constitutes an unfair trade practice, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, as claimed by the Complainants.  This Opposite Party as well as the Complainants are bound by the lawfully issued notification of the Government of India and the Complainants’ revised pension can only be calculated according to paragraph 12 of the scheme as it stands today.  It is stated that, the Complainants are eligible for benefit of 2 years weightage as sought by virtue of paragraph 10(2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 and they were revised and also denied that the Opposite Party has failed to pay annual relief.  It is stated that, there is no provision whatsoever in the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 for any ‘annual relief’.  Paragraph 32 of the Scheme quoted by the Complainants relates only to its annual valuation, to be carried out by the Central Government.  Based on the valuation, the Central Government, at its discretion, may alter the rate of contribution to the scheme or any benefit admissible under the Scheme.  No enforceable right accrues to the Complainants by virtue of Para 32 of the Scheme as the Central Government has not notified any admissible benefit and thus question of any deficiency  of service on the part of this Opposite Party does not arise.  After the year 2000 the Central Government has not declared any relief/enhancement of pension to the pensioners under the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 as actuarial valuations did not reveal any surplus in the scheme to allow for enhancement of monthly pension.  All declared benefits have already been paid to the pensioners.  It is stated that, the Complainants are not eligible for interest as claimed by them and sought for dismissal of the complaints.

III.      In support of the above complaints, the Complainants in all the complaints examined as CW-1 and produced some documents as mentioned in the Annexure here below under Exhibit ‘C’ series.  One Sri.Ranjay Mooshahary (RW1) – Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.  The Opposite Party produced some documents as mentioned in the Annexure here below under Exhibit ‘R’ series.  In complaint No.336 to 361 of 2014 the Complainant filed notes of arguments along with citations, notification, appeal order and previous judgements.  In complaint No.443 to 458, 461 to 471 of 2014 the Complainant not filed notes of arguments.  In all the above cases the Opposite Party filed notes of arguments. 

          In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the complaints filed by the Complainants are barred by limitation?

2. Whether the Complainants proved that in each case they are entitled for benefit of minimum wages under both the schemes and also entitled for weightage of two years?

3. Whether the Complainants proved that all the Complainants are entitled annual relief?

4. Whether the Complainants proved that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

5. If so, whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed?

6. What order?

           We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the Parties and also considered the materials that was placed by the Complainants as well as Opposite Parties before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:    

                      Point No.(i): Affirmative.

                       Point No.(ii) to (vi): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.  Point No. (i):

In all the fifty three cases the Opposite Party is one and the same though the Complainants are different from one case to the other.  The subject matter, the question of law and facts involved are one and the same.  In order to avoid repetition of the facts and reasons and also to save the time, we have taken up all the complaints together for passing common order as follows:-

That the first plea considered is that, whether complaints are barred by limitation? As far as this point is concerned, we find that, the Complainants are the retired employees of the K.S.R.T.C. and some of the Complainants in complaint No.451, 462, 463 and 468/2014 are the retired employees of Bank and in all the complaints the Complainants are all retired from the service on superannuation, after the retirement their pension was calculated and being disbursed by the Provident Fund Commissioner i.e., Opposite Party.

 Now it is the common complaint of the Complainants that, there are error in calculation and they have not considered the assured minimum benefits, weightage of two years and annual relief in accordance with rules and regulations.  It is the definite case of the Complainants that, the above mistake/errors in calculation of the pension by the Opposite Party came to their knowledge in the year 2013 and 2014.  However, all the Complainants filed interlocutory application to condone the delay stated that the cause of action to file the above complaints are recurring cause of action, the complaints filed by the Complainants are in time.

However, we have perused the entire records and also heard the counsels for the parties in length.  As far as limitation is concerned, Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act provides two years from the date of cause of action.  But in the instant cases, the Complainants filed an application accompanied by affidavit sought an order for condonation of delay. That the error of calculation of their pension and non-considering of the weightage of two years and assured minimum benefits by the Opposite Party came to their knowledge in or about in the year 2013 and 2014 mentioned therein in their respective complaints.  As held by the Hon'ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Appeals No.415-419/2008 dated 14-7-2008, observed that, the period of limitation starts from the date on which the pensioners came to know that the pension that is being fixed/paid by the Opposite Party is erroneous.  That means, when there is continuing wrong/recurring wrong, in such cases the cause of action starts from the date of knowledge not otherwise. Therefore, the I.A. filed by the Complainants in all the cases hereby allowed and we hold that there is no delay and question of limitation does not arise. That the point No.(i) held in favour of the Complainants.

Points No.(ii) to (vi):-

          As far as rest of the points are concerned, it is admitted fact that, the Complainants are retired employees, that they were members of the Family Pension Scheme 1971 and also continued to contribute their subscription under the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995.  It is also admitted fact that, prior to coming into force of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 (‘Scheme 1995’ for brevity) with effect from 15.11.1995, the Complainants were governed by Family Pension Scheme 1971 (‘Scheme 1971’ for brevity).   Scheme 1971 was repealed and scheme 1995 was introduced as new scheme.  All Complainants contributed monthly subscriptions under both the Schemes.

However, now all the Complainants came up with a complaint contented that, there are error in calculation of the pension, in fact they are entitled for the separate minimum assured pensions for the past service and present service. The paragraph No.12 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 the monthly pension means aggregate of the past service and present pension benefits.  And further they are entitled for the weightage of two years as per paragraph No.10(2) read with paragraph 2 clause (XV) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 and also entitled for annual life. But the Opposite Party not followed the provision of law and made erroneous calculation.  Hence the complaints.

But the counsel appeared for the Opposite Party vehemently argued that, the revised pension of the Complainants as calculated in annexure R2 is correct and there is no separate minimum assured pension for past and present service. The judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the Channakeshavulu case quoted by the Complainants is of no relevance as the judgment was issued prior to the amendment of paragraph 12 of the scheme by the Government of India vide GSR 431 E dated 15.06.2007 that was deemed to have come into force from the date the scheme came into force i.e., from 16.11.1995.  The Complainants are misconceived the para 12 of the Scheme 1995.  That the pension is considered on the aggregate in past service of Family Pension Scheme 1971 and present pension benefit under Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995, it is argued that, Para No.12(3)(a), 12(3)(b) amended retrospectively with effect from 16.11.1995 vide Government Notification GSR 431 E 15.6.2007.  As per para 10 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995, those members who have put in 20 years of service or more from 16.11.1995 the fact of weightage is applicable. The weightage of service shall be considered only from the year 2015, the Complainants not completed 20 years from 16-11-1995 till the date of retirement and hence question of weightage of service of two years doesn’t arise.  It is also argued that the various services like past service, contributory service, actual service, eligible service, pensionable service, non-contributory service are defined under Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 under different context, after taking into consideration these services, the pension was worked out by minimum assured benefits wherever it is applicable.  Further it is argued that as per para 10 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the member has to superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service will be increased by adding a weightage of two years so as to determine the quantum of pension, as the scheme stands weightage is to be given only from the year November 2015.  Further stated that, para 32 of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the Central Government decides the revision in the quantum of pension if any under the scheme.  The Government not released any further relief into effect from 01.04.2000 onwards.  Therefore, the Complainants are not entitled to the above benefit and stated that there is no deficiency.

           However, it is seen on record that, in all the complaints the Complainants have filed their own memo of calculation disclosing the particulars required for decision of these cases, they are inclusive of provident fund number, name of the member, date of birth, date of joining of E.P.F., Date of Exit, Age at Exit, Aged as on 16.11.1995, pay as on 15.11.1995, past service period, present service and pensionable salary Etc. Etc.

           Before discussing further, for the sake convenience the provision of law defined under the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 reproduced hereunder:

Para 12 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995:

Para 12.  Monthly Member’s Pension – (1) A member shall be entitled to –

           (a) Superannuation pension if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years;

              b) Retirement pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years;

              c) Short service pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more but less than 20 years.

(2) In the case of a new entrant the amount of monthly superannuation pension or retiring pension as the case may be, shall be computed in accordance with the following facts, namely:

        Monthly member’s pension = Pensionable salary x Pensionable service

                                                                   70

(3) In the case of an employee (who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971) and who has not attained the age of 48 years on the 16^th November 1995;

            Superannuation / retirement / short service pension shall be equal to the aggregate of:-

1.  Pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of pensionable service rendered from the 16^th November, 1995 or Rs.635/- per month whichever is more;
2. Past service pension benefit shall be as given below:-

            The past service benefit on completion of 58 years of age on 16.11.1995.

            Subject to a minimum of Rs.800/- per month provided the past service is 24 years.  If the aggregate service of the member is less than 24 years, the pension and the benefits computed as above shall be reduced proportionately subject to a minimum of Rs.450/- per month. 

3.  On completion of the age of 58 years after 16.11.1995, the benefit under column (2) or column (3) above, as the case may be, shall be multiplied by the factor given in Table ‘B’ – corresponding to the period between 16.11.1995 and date of attainment of age 58 to arrive at past service pension payable.

Para 12(4) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 reads thus:

12(4): In the case of an employee (who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971) and has attained the age of 48 years but less than 53 years on the 16^th November 1995, the superannuation / retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of –

1. Pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16^th November 1995 or Rs.438/- per month whichever is more.
2. Past service benefits as provided in sub-paragraph (3) subject to a minimum of Rs.600/- per month, provided the past service is 24 years.  Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefits taken together shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum of Rs.325/- per month. 

Para 12(5) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 reads thus:

12(5): In the case of an employee (who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971) and has attained the age of 53 years or more on the 16^th November 1995, the superannuation / retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of  -

1. Pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16^th November 1995 per month or Rs.335/- per month whichever is more.
2. Past service benefits provided in sub-paragraph (3) subject to the minimum of Rs.500/- per month, provided the past service is 24 years.  Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefits shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of Rs.265/- per month.

(6) Except as otherwise expressly provided herein after the monthly members pension under sub-paragraph (2) and (5) mentioned herein above, as the case may be shall be payable from a date immediately following the date of completion of 58 years of age notwithstanding that the member has retired or ceased to be in the employment before that date. 

          The above mentioned paragraphs i.e., 12(3) to 12(5) of the Scheme 1995, made us very clear that, minimum pension fixed for the past service is separate and the minimum pension fixed for the present service is separate. The Opposite Party counsel contented that aggregate of (a) and (b) shall be subject to a minimum if past service is 24 years.  There are no separate minimum pensions fixed for past and present services.  And further contented that, the Section 12(3)(a) and 12(3)(b) amended retrospectively with effect from 16.11.1995 vide Government Notification No. GSR 431 E dated 15.6.2007.   The above argument is not justifiable. Because the provision 12(3) to 12(5) of the Family pension scheme 1995 made very clear that the past service and the present services considered separately.  And also it is very clear that the Complainants are entitled two years of weightage periods who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more.   Further at the time of entering into the scheme by the Complainants no such provisions were existing and there is no material evidence available on record to show that the same is applicable retrospectively.  The circular issued by the Government cannot be treated as an amendment to the Act.  Hence, it is not applicable to the cases on hand.

          The above discussion on the provision of law is very clear that minimum pension fixed for the past service and subsequent service from 16.11.1995 is separate.  The employees retiring at certain age group and put in past and service subsequent to 16.11.1995 or put in 24 years of aggregate service are entitled for the benefit of minimum service.  Similarly the minimum pension is regarding their service subsequent to the Scheme 1995 coming into force. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that, the monthly pension of each of the Complainants should be fixed with reference to their age group and number of year service put in and if their pension was more than the minimum fixed under the Scheme, the pension so calculated should be taken into consideration.  But it false below the minimum monthly pension, then the monthly pension for the purpose of calculation of the pension should be the minimum fixed under the scheme.  It means to say that, under both the Schemes minimum monthly pension is fixed for the employees.  We find that, such monthly minimum pension benefits under both the Schemes were not given to all the Complainants by Opposite Party.

          Further we noticed that, Complainants in all the cases have put in more than 20 years of service and they are entitled for weightage of two years and the same was not considered by the Opposite Party.  But the counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently contended that, as per para 10 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 those members who have put in 20 years of service or more from 16.11.1995 the fact of weightage is applicable, the pension has been calculated/fixed according to the paragraph 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and stated that as per para 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 the member has to superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more his pensionable service will be increased by adding a weightage of two years so as to determine the quantum of pension.  As the scheme stands, weightage is to be given only from November 2015 and vehemently contended that the Complainants are not entitled to the above benefits.

On scrutiny of the material evidence available on record, we find that, admittedly the Complainants were the employees of the KSRTC and some are bank employees now all are retired from service either on superannuation or voluntarily.

However, in all the above complaints the governing Para is 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to reproduce the provision of Law for ready reference:-

Para 10 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995:-

Determination of Pensionable Service –

(1) The pensionable service of the member shall be determined with reference to the contributions (received or receivable) on his behalf in the Employees’ Pension Fund.

(2) In case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years, and / or who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 2 years. 

Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 definitions 2(1) (ii) “actual service” means the aggregate of periods of service rendered from the 16^th November, 1995 or from the date of joining any establishment whichever is later to the date of exit from the employment of the establishment covered under the Act;

(iv): “Contributory service” means the period of actual service rendered by a member for which the contributions to the fund have been received or are receivable.

(xv) “Pensionable Service” means the service rendered by the member for which contributions have been received or are receivable.

Manual of Accounting Procedure Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.  “Pensionable Service” –  6.2.13:

6.2.13: Wherever the pensionable service is 20 years or more, irrespective of the age, an additional weightage of 2 years is to be given, so as to determine the quantum of pension.  As the Scheme stands as on 31.03.1997, the weightage is due to be given only in the year (November) 2015.

Manual of Accounting Procedure Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.   “Eligible Service” – 6.2.14:

6.2.14: The eligibility for pension is determined with reference to ‘eligible service’.  This comprises of the services namely, ‘past service’ and ‘actual service’.  The period of past service relates to service rendered by the employees under the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme from 1.3.1971 to 15.11.1995.  The actual service is the period of service rendered by the employees commencing from a date on or after 16.11.1995 till the date of exit from the employment or attainment of 58 years of age, whichever is earlier.  The period either under past service or under actual service or both, as the case may be, will constitute eligible service.  The eligibility for monthly pension to the member is determined with reference to ‘eligible service’ only.  The period of ‘past service’ and ‘actual service’ should be rounded off separately to the nearest year to determine the eligibility for pension.  If on account of rounding off alone the eligibility is denied such cases may be referred to Central Office.

          From reading of the above provision namely para 10(1) is clear that pension service shall be determined with reference to contributions received or receivable on his behalf in the Employees Pension Fund.  The term pensionable service is distinguished from actual service or contributory service.  In the term pensionable service as defined in Para 2 (XV) there is no such word used as service rendered after 16.11.1995, however, the term actual service which is defined in Para 2(1)(i)(ii) as aggregate of periods of service rendered after 16.11.1995 or after date of joining any establishment till the date of exits from service.  But the term actual service not at all used in para 10(1) and 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. But, we find that, with regard to the payment of pension and entitlement of the weightage of two years it has been already settled by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in a case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli versus Mallikarjun Devendrappa Verapur 2010 (3) CPR 45 (Revision Petition No.3970/2009 dated 29.06.2010.  The above judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission is binding on all the parties concerned. The similar question of granting weightage of two years under the Scheme 1995 while fixing the pension of an employee was raised before the Hon’ble National Commission.  The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli was the revision Petitioner before the Hon’ble National Commission.  Similar contention raised in all the complaints were also raised before the Hon’ble National Commission that one must have put 20 years of eligible service after coming into force of Scheme 1995 to get two years weightage.  The employee in the revision petition before the Hon’ble National Commission had rendered past service of 24 years prior to 15.11.1995 and further service of 8 years after 16.11.1995.  The Complainant in the above cited case retired from service on 14.01.2004 on attaining the Superannuation of 58 years. The Hon’ble National Commission negative the contention of the revision petitioner i.e., Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli in the above case and held that on the date of his retirement, the employee had put in aggregate service of more than 20 years and he is entitled for two years of weightage.  The contention of the Provident Fund Commissioner that the weightage was due to be given only in and after the year November 2015 did not get support from any provision in the Scheme 1995, that paragraph 6.2.13 in the manual of accounting procedure was not in accordance with the provisions in the Scheme, 1995 and not considered the contentions raised by the provident fund commissioner.  Thus, we need not discuss again on the same point whether the Complainants are entitled for weightage of two years or not.  From the above citation, it is very clear that, if an employee had put in eligible service of 20 years or more from the date of joining service till exit is entitled for the benefit of two years weightage.  In all the above cases, the Complainants were retired after Superannuation and they have put in eligible service of 20 years and more.  But the Opposite Party not considered two years weightage period to all the Complainants which amounts to deficiency of service.          

          The one more grievances of the Complainants are that, the Opposite Party failed to consider annual relief under paragraph 32 of the Scheme 1995.  The counsel appearing for the Opposite Party argued that, they are only the implementing agent, unless the Central Government evaluates and review the quantum of pension and other benefits to the pensioners, Opposite Party could not give this relief to the Complainants.  As far as this point is concerned, the counsel appearing for the Complainants produced the letter dated 07.05.2010 issued by Employees Provident Fund Organization, New Delhi, wherein, the valuations for the period of 31.3.2005, 31.3.2006 and 31.3.2007 are recently being carried out.  When that being so, the Opposite Party cannot raise their hands by saying that the Central Government only is responsible for that.  Along with the Central Government, the Opposite Party also held responsible and see that the annual relief shall be released by taking reasonable steps and given to the pensioners.  Therefore, non-payment of annual relief till this date to the Complainants also amounts to deficiency in service.

          In view of the above discussion in length, we are of the considered opinion that, the Complainants in each complaint is entitled for two years of weightage if their aggregate service was 20 years or more.  Similarly, depending upon the age of retirement, number of years of service plus two years weightage, the monthly pension scheme of each Complainant has to be re-calculated.  All the Complainants in each complaint are entitled for the benefit of minimum pension calculated with reference to para 12 and Table-B shown in the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995. The Hon’ble High Court considered the similar facts of an employee directed the Provident Fund Commissioner to correct the error. The above observation supported by the observation made by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in a case K.Channakesavalu versus the Employees Provident Fund Organization, represented by its Commissioner, New Delhi and Others (ILR 2004 KAR 2859).   

          However, we also observed that, the above matter went up to Hon’ble Supreme Court, even though the Opposite Party not ready to accept the interpretation given in number of cases decided before the District Forums, Hon'ble State Commission as well as National Commission in this regard.  Despite of holding many numbers of judgments in their hand, they keep on interpreting the provision of law according to their convenience.  We further noticed that, the parties before this FORA produced the copy of the order in SLP 3174 of 2007 dated 20.4.2010, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeals preferred by the Employees Provident Fund Organization and others.  While dismissing the civil appeals and civil petition observed that the question of law is left open. Even in a recent decision rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka State Commission, that the Lordships observed in a case Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli V.s Kallurappa Hirehal & others in Appeal No.s 3449 to 3458/2009 and 1134 to 1140/2010, dated 16/12/2011, wherein held that the pensioners are entitled for two years weightage under 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and also observed that all the pensioners who have rendered more than 20 years of effective service are entitled for the minimum assured pension for the past service as well as the service put in by each pensioners and directed the Opposite Party i.e., the Provident Fund Commissioner to recalculate the pension.

          In view of the above discussion, we hold that, the Scheme 1995 is very clear and the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission and the Hon'ble State Commission, at the same time the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also considered the same issue.  The Hon'ble State Commission in appeal No.1256/2009 dated 21.8.2009 decided the issue of granting two years weightage, finally it was decided by the Hon'ble National Commission on 29.6.2010.  If there was ambiguity or the interpretation of the Hon'ble Courts/Forums are not correct they should have preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and see that the order passed by the lower Courts/Forums have been quashed.  But there is no such order till now.  However, we find that, the Opposite Party No.1 despite of holding many number of judgments in their hand forced these senior citizens i.e., Complainants to approach the District FORA, for that the Opposite Party shall pay adequate compensation by way of interest. By considering the age of the Complainants and also the inconvenience caused to them for all these years, we hereby directed the Opposite Party as follows:-

          The Opposite Party i.e., Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional office, Mangalore is hereby directed to recalculate the pension payable to the Complainants in each complaint giving weightage of two years and also extend minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service with effect from the date of retirement of the each Complainant along with arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also directed to the Opposite Party to give annual reliefs as per paragraph 32 of the scheme 1995 to all the Complainants from the respective due date along with interest at 12% per annum.  Apart from the above, Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,000/- each to the Complainant in all the cases towards cost of the litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 45 days from the receipt of this order. 

In the present case, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.

V.       In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

          The complaint Nos.336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471 of 2014 allowed. The Opposite Party i.e., the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional office, Mangalore is hereby directed to recalculate the pension payable to the Complainants in each complaint giving weightage of two years and also extend minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service with effect from the date of retirement of each Complainant along with arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and also directed the Opposite Party to give annual reliefs as per paragraph 32 of the scheme 1995 to all the Complainants from the respective due date along with the interest at 12% per annum.  Apart from the above, Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) each to the Complainant in all the cases towards cost of the litigation expenses.  Payment shall be made within 45 days from the receipt of this order.

            Keep the original order in complaint No.336/2014 and copy in other connected cases and Opposite Party in all the cases are common. Since the complaints are 53 in Nos., both the counsels are directed to receive the certified copies instead of free copies in order to save time.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.

(Page No.1 to 38 dictated to the Sheristedar typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th day of May 2015)

        PRESIDENT                                         MEMBER                      

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:

CW1 –

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainants in complaint No. 336 to 361, 443 to 458, 461 to 465, 467 to 469, 471  of 2014:

Ex C1 –                : Copy of Pension Payment Order issued by the

                             Opposite Party on different dates.

Ex C2 – 05.08.2014: Acknowledged copy of representation.

Ex C3 – 07.05.2010: Notarized copy of the letter issued by the

                              Ministry of Labour Provident Fund

                              Organization.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainants in complaint No. 466 and 470 of 2014:

Ex C1 –                : Copy of the Pensioner portion issued by the

                              Opposite Party on different dates.

Ex C2 – 05.08.2014: Acknowledged copy of representation.

Ex C3 -                  : Postal receipt.

Ex C3 – 07.05.2010: Notarized copy of the letter issued by the

                              Ministry of Labour Provident Fund

                              Organization.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1 – Sri.Ranjay Mooshahary – Regional Provident Fund

           Commissioner (Legal) of the Opposite Party in all the

           above cases.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party in complaint No.336 to 361, 443, 455, 461 of 2014:

Ex R1 – Paragraph 12 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.

Ex R2 – Calculation of Complainants’ monthly Pension under EPS

                     1995.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party in complaint No.466 of 2014:

Ex R1 – Worksheet/PPO DATA Sheet issued by the Opposite Party.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party in complaint No.444 to 454, 456, 457, 458, 462 to 465, 467 to 471 of 2014:

• Nil   -

Dated:27.05.2015                                          PRESIDENT