By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President The averments in the complaint is as follows: The first petitioner is the son of second petitioner and has 80 cents of land in Venkitangu Village and is fit for paddy cultivation. The 1st petitioner is a member of a special employment scheme declared by the Government in the field of agriculture. He has joined in the scheme on 17/4/95 by paying Rs.100/-as registration fee and Rs.1000/- as contribution to the scheme. The benefits under the scheme include disability pension at the rate of Rs.200/- to Rs.750/-. The 1st petitioner is suffering from mental disability since six years and is under the treatment of Dr.James T Antony. The monthly treatment expenses will come more than Rs.1000/- and he is entitled for the pension of Rs.750/- per month. Application for pension benefit is submitted to the 1st respondent with relevant documents like certificate from Doctor, the bills of medicines and the chalan showing registration fee and scheme contribution. The application is forwarded to the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent but no remedy is obtained so far. Hence this complaint. 2. The counter of 1st respondent to 3rd respondent is to the same effect and as follows: The respondents deny each and every allegations and averments except those which are specifically admitted. The scheme has two monthly pension programme and as per the directions in the scheme, for availing invalid pension the member should produce some certificates such as certificate issued by the Medical Board, Income Certificate and Certificate issued by the authorities in proof of land holdings with family. As per the scheme, the application for pension along with all the corroborative records are presented before the District level Committee and will be forwarded to the State Level Committee along with the recommendation of the District Level Committee for sanction of pension. The quantum of invalid pension will be decided by the State level committee considering the income and recurring expenses the member has to incur for curing the disease on incapacity. The petitioner has not furnished any records in proof of his income, land holdings etc. The invalid pension requested for in the petition can be available to the complainant, if the same is found to be permissible to him by the State Level Committee, within 6 months for which the complainant may be directed to produce all records for processing the claim. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The counter of 4th respondent is as follows: This respondent is adopting the contentions in the counter of 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents. 4th respondent also taken the contentions as the Government has conducted a review of the scheme and found that there will be huge recurring expense in sanctioning monthly pension, both normal and disability pension for the entire life time of the members as envisaged in the scheme and it will add to the financial burden of the Government which is already undergoing financial crisis. Therefore, the Government proposes to review the whole scheme as to make it viable and beneficial by enabling delivery of sustainable livelihood support to the members of the scheme. With this objective in view, the Government have engaged NABARD to undertake a detailed study of the scheme and give recommendation to Government for implementing a viable and more beneficial scheme utilizing the contribution of the members of the scheme and the State Governments contribution. A memorandum of understanding has also been signed for the purpose between the Director of Agriculture and NABARD. 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents filed additional counter contending the same averments. 4. The following points arise for consideration are 1) Is there any deficiency in service ? 2) Is the complainant is entitled for the pension as alleged ? 3) Other reliefs and costs ? 5. The evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P10 series and Exhibits R1 series. 6. Point No.1 The definite case of petitioner is that as per the monthly pension scheme he is entitled for the pension benefits. He has joined the scheme by paying the prescribed fee. According to him he is entitled for the disability pension. Mental and physical disabilities are envisaged by the scheme. To prove his case he has produced documents and are marked as Exhibits P1 to P10 series. As per the documents it can be seen that he had applied for the respondents to issue the pension which he is entitled but not provided. Exhibit P8 is a very crucial document establishing the case of petitioners. It is an admission by the first respondent and no rebuttal evidence is produced. The case of petitioners is admitted by the opposite parties and no other evidence is necessary. As per Exhibit P7 the first respondent recommended for the monthly pension of Rs.750/- after conducting an enquiry. All the respondents admitted the case of petitioners and stated that some required documents were not produced by the petitioners. If those documents are produced they are ready to provide the pension. Exhibit P2 is the certificate issued by Medical Board and shows that the first petitioner is permanently disabled and unable to work and earn livelihood due to the psychosis disorder. To eligible for the pension this certificate is highly essential. The income certificate and the title deed of the landed property are also produced and marked. The first petitioner is eligible and entitled for the pension. But in the counter of 4th respondent and in the additional counter of 1st to 3rd respondents they have contended that the Government has conducted a review of the scheme and found that there will be huge recurring expense in sanctioning monthly pension and will add to the financial burden to the Government which is already undergoing financial crisis. The practical difficulties arising out of implementation of the scheme are stated in the version and there is no evidence regarding the development of the scheme. What happened to the scheme later is not mentioned anywhere. In the additional counter filed by 1st respondent on 21/12/05, the modification of the scheme is mentioned. It is in the year 2005 and the 1st petitioner has joined in the scheme in the year 1995. In the Circular dated 15/12/05 stating the modifications there is nothing regarding the disability pension. As per Exhibit R1 series documents the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.200/- per month as pension. Hence the 1st complainant is entitled to get the above mentioned amount from 24//1/2001. There is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. 7. Point No.2 The deficiency in service on the part of respondents are proved. The 1st petitioner is entitled to get the pension from 24/1/01, the date on which application is put before the concerned authority for sanctioning the benefit. Without just cause, the claim is rejected by the respondents. So they are liable to provide compensation. 8. In the result complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to give Rs.200/- (Rupees Two hundred only) per month as pension to the 1st complainant. He is entitled to get the benefit from 24/1/2001. The arrears are to be cleared within two months. Petitioners are also entitled for Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation to this litigation. Comply the order within two months. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 16th day of September 2008.
