Karnataka

Kolar

CC/139/2023

Sri.N.Thimmaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Commissioner, EPFO - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.D.V.Laxminarayana

28 Mar 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 07/11/2023

Date of Order: 28/03/2024

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, OLD D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR – 563 101.

Dated: 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., …… PRESIDENT

SMT. SAVITHA AIRANI, B.A.L., LL.M., …..LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:139/2023

 

Sri. N. Thimmaiah

S/o.  Narayanappa,

Aged about 63 years,

No.5819, champakadhama

Convention Hall Opposite,

Maruthi Layout, 2^nd Block,

Malur Town,

Kolar.

(Rep. by D.V. Laxinarayana, Advocate)           ….  Complainant.

 

                                                                                                                - V/s –

Assistant Commissioner(Pension)

Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Dooravani Nagar,

NFU Block, ITI Campus, F-28,

K.R. Puram,

Bangalore-16.

(Rep. by Smt. Vimala. C, Advocate)              ……Opposite Party.                                                                  

 

-: ORDER:-

BY SRI. SYED ANSER KALEEM, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complainant filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against OP and praying for directions to the OP to grant weightage as per the section 10(2) with the Provident Fund Act as per section 7(q) along with interest @ 12% P.a from 03/03/2018 and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.4,000/- towards  cost of the proceedings.

 

2. The brief facts of the case is that, the complainant served more than 19 years 06 months 28 days and during his service he had contributed the amount to her PF account bearing No.PYKRP00035962 and PYKRP0019722/000/0000023 and the PF amount deducted from his salary.  It is stated that, complainant was served in his institution since from 01/08/1998 to 02/03/2018 and served about 19 years, 06 months, 28 days.  It is stated that, in case of member who attains superannuation on attaining age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more than his pensionable service shall be increased by a weightage of 2 years, but OP fixed monthly pension for Rs.2,048/-.  It is stated that, complainant given representation on 27/10/2023 and also got issued legal notice to the OP claiming weightage of 2 years against the service rendered by the complainant, but the OP denied the claim of the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

 

3. Upon admission of complaint and on issuance of notice, OP appeared through his counsel and filed its version.  In the version it is contended that, the complaint is not maintainable either in the eye of law or on facts.  Since the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as defined in the act. 

 

4. Further contended that, claim for weightage attaining pension as per the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and if there is any variation/difference/shortage, the same can be adjudicated by the OP in the provision of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 which provides for necessary machinery to adjudicate the dispute.

 

5. Further OP submits that, complainant is retired employee of M/s Primary Co-operative and Rural Development Bank Ltd., and retired from the service on 02/03/2018.  Further pension has commenced from 03/03/2018 (at the age of 58 years) it is contended that, complainant being not satisfied with the quantum of pension paid by the institution and thereon, complaint before this Commission claiming revision of pension with reference to 12 and Para 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.

 

6. Further contended that, complainant has become a member of the Employees Pension Fund with effect from 01.08.1998 and superannuated on 02.03.2018 and rendered the pensionable service of 19 years, 06 months, 28 days under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 .  Further contended that, as per the service details of the complainant was an employee of M/s Srinivasapur Taluk Primary        Co-operative Agricultural his PF account was PYKRP/23309/11 and served for the period from 01/08/1998 to 19/10/2013, later he has been transferred to M/s Primary Co-operative and Rural Development Bank limited, PF account was PYKRP/19722/23 where he has served for period from 21/10/2013 to 02/03/2018.  There is no service details prior to 01/08/1998 have been found in R/o of the complainant.

 

7. It is also contended that, OP has been paying pension regularly a sum of Rs.2,048/- under Para 11, 12(1)(a) & 12(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 per month being monthly member pension as per the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  It is contended that, the pension proceeds have been credited to the SB account No.144201011003403 maintained with Vijaya Bank, Malur Branch. 

 

8. Further contended that, the pension is calculated in connection with Date of birth, date of joining, date of leaving (retired from the service) pensionable salary and date of commencement of the pension.  Hence contended that, pension is fixed as per the eligibility i.e., the sum of Rs.2,048/- under Para 11, 12(1)(a) & 12(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  Further contended that, as per the provision in respect of superannuation pension case of the complainant the calculation arrived as per applying the formula and norms of the pension scheme act 1995 the total pension payable to the complainant case to Rs.2,048/-.

 

9. Further contended that, the weightage of 02 years under Para 10(2) of the EPS, is to be given only if pensionable service is 20 years or more, but in the instant case member has rendered 19 years, 06 months and 28 days of pensionable service i.e., less than 20 years of pensionable service.  Hence, the complainant is not eligible for the weightage of 02 years under Para 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.

 

10. It is contended that, the pension of complainant has been regulated as per Para 12(1)(a) & 12(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  It is contended further, OP has correctly calculated monthly member pension of the complainant.

 

11. On the above said grounds OP submits that, they have not committed any deficiency in service and finally pray to reject the claim of the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

 

12. In order to prove the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence.

 

13. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will do arise for our consideration.

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, he is eligible for 2 years weightage as per the scheme of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and the same is denied by the OP contrary to the scheme amounts to deficiency in service ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint?
3. What Order?

 

We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the evidence placed on record.

Our answers to the above points as under:

Point No. (1) & (2):-    In the Negative.

Point No. (3):-             As per the final orders

                                 for the following

                        

5299419885.  

 

14. Point No.(1) & (2):-  On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence placed on record and we are of the opinion that these two points are interlinked to each other and in order to avoid repetition of discussion of facts and for the sake brevity these points will taken up together for common discussion.

 

15. Further, on perusal of the evidence placed on record, it is not in dispute that the complainant was served to an extent of 19 years, 06 months, 28 days. 

 

16. The main allegation of the complainant is that, in case of member who attains superannuation on attaining age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more than his pensionable service shall be increased by a weightage of 2 years, but OP fixed monthly pension for Rs.2,048/-.

 

It is the specific contention of the complainant is that, though he was served 19 years, 06 months, 28 days and the same is to be counted for 20 years on the ground that, in case of new entrant ¹⁷[contributory service] shall be treated as eligible service.  The total actual service shall be rounded off to the nearest year.  The traction of service for 06 months or more shall be treated as one year and the service less than 06 months shall be ignored as stated in the Para 09 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.

  

Per contra, counsel for the OP drawn our attention in case of new entrant ¹⁷[contributory service] shall be treated as eligible service.  On perusal of the foot note of the bottom of the act Para 9 of the scheme 1995.  It is substituted for “actual service” by G.S.R 226 (E),dt.26.03.2015 (w.e.f 26.03.2015) and hence, it is crystal clear that, complainant entered the service on 01/08/1998 and was retired on 02/03/2018 that is total service is 19 years, 06 months 28 days, hence the provision of the total actual service shall be rounded off to the nearest year cannot be considered for the complainant as he entered the service on 01/08/1998 and hence the actual service shall not be rounded off to the next year and the complainant cannot claim as a matter of right and he misconstrued the Para 9 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.

 

17. Furthermore, counsel for the OP also drawn our attention to the circular dated: 08/05/2017 of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India) wherein which, it is clearly specified that, after amendment that is, w.e.f. 24.07.2009 a member is eligible for benefit of 2 years weightage of service provided,

1. He superannuates on attaining age of 58 years and
2. He has rendered 20 years of pensionable service.

 

18. Further, the counsel for OP drawn our attention to the circular dated 08/07/2011, it also intimated all the Regional Provident Fund Commissioners by the Employees Provident Fund Organization it has been clearly mentioned change in the application software for calculation of pension by stopping the rounding off service/exact pensionable service in years, months and days. 

 

19. In analyzing the case of the complainant in the light of the EPS 1995 Para 9 and in the light of the circulars issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India) we reached to conclusion that, OP not committed any deficiency in service and they have credited the eligible pension to the account of the complainant and hence complainant is not entitle for the any relief as sought in the complaint.  Accordingly we answered the Point No. (1) & (2) in the Negative.

 

20. Point No. (3):- On the basis of discussion and reasons assigned while answering Point No.(1)&(2) and thereon we proceed to pass the following order:
6698606.  

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.  No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to all the parties to the proceedings at free of cost.

 

    (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2024)

 

 

       MEMBER                              PRESIDENT