Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1568/2013

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Abdul Saleem - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

19 Feb 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing:11.10.2013

 Date of Disposal:19.02.2024

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:19.02.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.1568/2013

 

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sub-Regional Office

Aland Road No.97

Behind Remand Home

Gulbarga                                                                        Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

 

-Versus-

Mr Abdul Saleem

S/o Mr Abdul Khadar

Aged:65 years

R/o H No.7-66

Khooni Alawa Mominpura

Gulbarga - 585 104                                                         Respondent

(By Mr N Byregowda, Advocate)

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 12.08.2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.05/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels on record.

3.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and documents on record.

4.       The District Commission after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part, with a direction to the OP to re-fix the Pension of the Complainant as Rs.1,269/- per month from the Date of Retirement and shall pay arrears of difference of Rs.437/- per month to the Complainant with 9% interest p.a and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within eight weeks from the date of the Order.

5.       Aggrieved by the Order, OP is in Appeal, contending that, the District Forum erroneously held that the Complainant is eligible for weightage of two years and failed to observe that the weightage of two years is to be given only if pensionable service is to be calculated as service from 16.11.1995, which in this case is not more than 20 years hence no question of giving weightage.  The District Forum, without taking into consideration the distinction between past service and pensionable service, proceeded to take into consideration the total service period, for giving weightage which is erroneous and erred in interpretation of pensionable service itself.  Further, erroneously calculated the pensionable service as 9 years, which in fact is 8 years.   Further directed that, the Respondent should be paid Pension of Rs.1,269/-per month,  when in fact the appellant is eligible for pension of Rs.832/- per month and thus seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

6.       The allegation of the Complainant is that, the Pension so fixed by the OP is incorrect and it is not in accordance with EPS 1995, as he has fulfilled both the conditions of Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 and entitled for weightage of two years and revised monthly pension. The defense taken by the OP is that the Complainant had attained the age of 58 years, but, he had not rendered 20 years of service.  Therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to get weightage of two years and pension fixed by the OP in respect of the Complainant is in accordance with the EPS 1995 and there is no deficiency in service.

7.       Admittedly, Complainant was an employee of Gulbarga Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.,; he joined the service on 23.10.1972; he was the member of Family Pension Scheme; he contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971; subsequently, he continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995; he retired from the service on 31.08.2004 by rendering past service of 23 years and actual service of 8 years, in total 31 years of service. Hence, he is entitled for weightage of two years as per Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995 and his Monthly Pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12 of EPS as it stood before 15.06.2007.

8.       During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that as per the directions of the Head Office, the 2 Years weightage has been granted to the Respondent, Pension fixed at Rs.902/- per month w.e.f 01.09.2014 and arrears of Rs.16,371/- paid on 03.09.2014. Further, the learned Counsel also produced copy of decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.1248/2018 decided on 18.01.2023 in the case of P.Naraynasamy Vs Commissioner, The Employee Provident Fund Organisation and another against the order of dated 26.02.2018 passed in Appeal No.76/2015 of State Commission, Tamil Nadu.

9.       Perused the Memo of Calculation submitted by the Appellant along with the memo, observation made by the District Commission in the Impugned Order and so also findings recorded in Revision Petition No.1248/2018.

10.     Thus, it is clear from the records that the Complainant is entitled for actual service benefit as per pension formula at Rs.619/- and past service benefit at Rs.575/- as per Para 12 (4) (a) (b) of EPS 1995, by adding actual and past service benefit, it would come to Rs.1,194/- and after deducting ROC as per Para 13 of EPS 1995, his entitled Monthly Pension will have to be fixed at Rs.1,075/- and further he is also entitled for Annual Relief as per provision up to the year 2000.

          The decision of Hon’ble NCDRC New Delhi in Revision Petition No.1248/2018 decided on 18.01.2023 in the case of P Naraynasamy Vs Commissioner, The Employee Provident Fund Organisation and another of State Commission,Tamil Nadu referred by the learned Counsel for Appellant is not applicable to the present case on hand.

11.     To sum up, there is no ambiguity for us to declare that the calculation brought out in the PPO, with specific reference to the calculation of past service benefit is erroneous.  Further, the calculation arrived for fixing monthly pension of the Complainant by the District Forum requires to be interfered with, by modifying the same as observed above. In the circumstances, the Impugned Order requires to be interfered with by modifying the same in the following terms.

          Appeal is partly allowed.  Consequently, Impugned Order dated 12.08.2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.05/2013 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gulbarga is hereby modified by  directing the Appellant to re-calculate the entitled Monthly Pension of the Complainant as per Para 12 (4) (a) (b) of EPS 1995 of un-amended provision and also release the Annual Relief benefit as & when granted by the Central Government upto the year 2000 with cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant within 3 months from the Date of this Order.

The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

 

 

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

Lady Member                  Judicial Member                       President

*s