View 8664 Cases Against Provident Fund
View 2181 Cases Against Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner filed a consumer case on 09 Feb 2023 against Anjappa Chetty in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/1690/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Feb 2023.
Date of Filing :07.08.2017
Date of Disposal :09.02.2023
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:09.02.2023
PRESENT
APPEAL Nos.1687/2017 to 1697/2017
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan
Regional Office
No.13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road
Post Box No.25146
Bengaluru-560 025 Appellant
(By Mrs Nalini Venkatesh, Advocate)
(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)
-Versus-
1. Appeal No.1687/2017
Mr Manjunath
Aged about 63 years,
No.7, New No.13, 7th Cross,
Swimming Pool Extension,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru – 560003 Respondent
2. Appeal No.1688/2017
Mr V S Somanath Rao
S/o Mr V Suryanarayana Rao,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at No.418/A, Kumarakrupa,
12th Main Road, 1st Block,
Manjunathanagar,
Bengaluru – 560010 Respondent
3. Appeal No.1689/2017
Mr S B Wannur
Aged about 74 years,
R/at No.1776/B, IV Cross,
10th & 11th Main, Prakashnagar,
Bengaluru – 560021 Respondent
4.Appeal No.1690/2017
Mr Anjappa Chetty
S/o Mr Govindappa,
Aged about 61 years,
R/at No.1080,
BTM 1st Stage,
14th Main, 7th Cross,
Tavarekere,
Benagaluru – 560029 Respondent
(By Sri S S Nagaraj, Advocate)
5.Appeal No.1691/2017
Mr Govinda Raju H K,
S/o Mr Hanumantharayappa,
Aged about 61 years,
Kadabagere Post,
Tavarekere,
Bengaluru – 562130 Respondent
6. Appeal No.1692/2017
Mr T R Viswanatha
Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.810, 3rd Stage,
BEML Layout,
Rajeshwarinagar,
Bengaluru – 560098 Respondent
7. Appeal No.1693/2017
Mr Nataraju
Aged about 72 years,
No.524, Shivakrupa,
I C Cross, 3rd Stage,
4th Block, Basaveshwarnagar,
Bengaluru – 560079 Respondent
8. Appeal No.1694/2017
Mr Ashok S Bentur
S/o Mr SanammallappaBentur,
H No1303, I Phase,
V Main, V Cross,
Rajarajeswarinagar,
Bengaluru – 560050 Respondent
9. Appeal No.1695/2017
Mr Lingachary M,
S/o Mr Mallachari,
Aged about 62 years,
No.85, III Main Road,
Sanjeevini Nagar,
Mudalpalya,
Bengaluru. Respondent
(By Sri S S Nagaraj, Advocate)
10. Appeal No.1696/2017
Mr G S Shivaram
S/o Mr Siddaramaiah
Aged about 62 years,
No.35, Sri Madhu Nivas,
4th Cross, Kalidasa Layout,
Srinagar, Bengaluru – 560050 Respondent
11. Appeal No.1697/2017
Mr Thimmarayappa B
S/o Late Beerappa
Aged about 61 years,
10th A Main, 11th Cross,
33rd Division, Viratnagar,
Bommanahalli,
Bengaluru – 560068 Respondent
:ORDER:
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
2. Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels for Appellant and Respondents in Appeal Nos.1990/2017 and 1995/2017. It is observed that Notice on Respondents has not been returned in the following cases and also the fact that no step has been taken by the Appellant in Appeal Nos.1687 to 1689/2017, 1691 to 1694/2017, 1696/2017 and 1697/2017, taking into consideration, the vintage of the cases and age of the Respondents, yet again, as a special case, the service of notice in the above cases has been dispensed with to avoid further delay.
3. At the outset, let us examine whether the Complainants are entitled for re-fixation of pension by adding 2 years of weightage and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?
4. In this regard, we also take note of the following service particulars details of each of the Complainants on record, as hereunder:
Appeal No. | Complaint No. |
Date of Birth | Date of retirement | Past Service | Actual service |
Age on Retirement |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1687/2017 | 2482/2013 | 15.06.1950 | 28.02.2001 | 23 | 5 | 51 |
1688/2017 | 2483/2013 | 22.10.1951 | 21.10.2009 | 14 | 13 | 58 |
1689/2017 | 2487/2013 | 01.05.1939 | 30.04.1997 | 19 | 1 | 58 |
1690/2017 | 2489/2013 | 01.06.1952 | 31.05.2010 | 17 | 14 | 58 |
1691/2017 | 2496/2013 | 12.02.1952 | 11.02.2010 | 18 | 13 | 58 |
1692/2017 | 2495/2013 | 17.11.1945 | 30.11.2002 | 21 | 07 | 58 |
1693/2017 | 2499/2013 | 09.01.1941 | 08.01.1999 | 19 | 03 | 58 |
1694/2017 | 2512/2013 | 08.09.1943 | 31.01.2001 | 18 | 5 | 58 |
1695/2017 | 2514/2013 | 15.08.1951 | 14.08.2009 | 18 | 13 | 58 |
1696/2017 | 2520/2013 | 10.12.1951 | 09.12.2009 | 08 | 14 | 58 |
1697/2017 | 2500/2013 | 08.06.1952 | 07.06.2010 | 12 | 14 | 58 |
On Perusal of contents of the Table, it reveals that the Complainants in Appeal Nos.1687/2017, 1689/2017, 1692/2017 to 1694/2017 retired before 24.07.2009 and complied either of the condition of Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995, while Complainants in Appeal Nos.1688/2027, 1690/2017, 1691/2017, 1695/2017 to 1697/2017 retired after 24.07.2009 and complied with both the conditions of Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995. Hence, all the Complainants are entitled for the weightage of two years. With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension, it is observed that the Complainants in Appeal Nos.1687/2017, 1689/2017, 1692/2017 to 1694/2017 retired from their service before 15.06.2007 and in Appeal Nos.1688/2017, 1690/2017, 1691/2017and 1695/2017 to 1697/2017 retired from their service after 15.06.2007 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before and after 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995.
5. Thus, it is not in dispute that Respondent/Complainant in each of the case, during their service they joined the Employees PF Scheme; contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and continued to contribute subsequently to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. It is also not in dispute that Appellant/OP revised the Pension and released the arrears to the complainants. On perusal of details of calculation of Pension produced by the Appellant, it is observed that they paid the arrears of Pension amount belatedly and that too after the Complainant raising their grievances. It is pertinent to note from the document No.5 annexed to the Appeal Memorandum, it is not clear as to on which date they paid the arrears of pension to Pensioners. Thus, in our considered opinion, certainly this act of Appellant amounts to deficiency in service. In the circumstances, the Impugned Order directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service along with litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to each of the Complainant is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference. The delay between 212 and 219 days in filing of all these Appeals by the Appellant is hereby condoned by considering the reasons assigned in Affidavit filed in support of the IA.
6. With the foregoing observations, the Appeal Nos. 1687/2017 to 1697/2017 stands Dismissed.
7. The statutory deposits in all these Appeals is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.
*
8. Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.1687/2017 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.
9. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
President
*s
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.