Karnataka

Kolar

CC/138/2023

Sri.Venkataramanappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Commissioner, EPFO - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.D.V.Laxminarayana

25 Mar 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing: 07/11/2023

Date of Order: 25/03/2024

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

Dated:25^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: 138/2023

 

Sri. Venkataramanappa.

S/o Late. Muniyappa,

Aged about 65 years,

R.F Road, Shakthi Nagar,

Ward No.21,

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) the weightage is to be consider from 31/05/2016 along with interest @ 12% P.a 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 20 years 07 months 17 days and during his service he had contributed the amount to her PF account bearing No.PYKRP00033370 and 0000000036 and the PF amount deducted from his salary.  It is stated that, complainant was served in his institution since from 01/07/1995 to 31/05/2016 and served about 20 years, 07 months, 17 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 extending a weightage of 2 years, but the OP fixed monthly pension for Rs.2,561/-. It is stated that, complainant had given the representation on 06/09/2023 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, the claimant 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 Agriculture and Rural Development Bank, Malur and retired from the service on 31/05/2016.  Further, pension has commenced from 01/06/2016 (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 is misleading the Hon’ble Commission by saying that, the pension calculation is lesser than the amount entitled.  Further contended that, complainant has given representation to the OP for the revised of the monthly pension.  It is also contended that, OP has been paying pension regularly a sum of Rs.2,561/- under Para 10(2), 11 and 12 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.64079221900 maintained with SBI, Malur Branch.

 

7. 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.2,561/- under Para 10(2), 11 and 12 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.2,561/-.

 

8. Further contended that, the complainant has been granted superannuation pension, he has entitled for weightage of 2 years on pensionable service in compliance with Para 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  Further contended that, they have considered by increasing complainant’s pensionable service by adding weightage of 2 years.

 

9. It is contended that, the pension of complainant has been regulated as per para 12.1(a), 12(3) and 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  It is contended further, OP has correctly calculated monthly member pension of the complainant.  

 

10. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, the OP by not giving 2 years weightage as per the scheme of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and thereby committed 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.

 

                           REASONS

13. 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.

 

14. Further on perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is not in dispute that the complainant served in his institution more than 20 years 07 months 17 days.  It is also not in dispute that, the complainant during his service was contributed PF amount to the OP through deduction in his monthly salary. 

 

15. The allegation of the complainant is that, despite giving representation on 06/09/2023 and issuing legal notice, but the OP did not considered the claim of the complainant and failed in extending two years weightage despite his eligibility. 

 

Per contra OP contended that, they have already extended the benefit of 2 years weightage as per the scheme of the Act and the OP calculated the 2 years weightage given to the complainant as per the formula prescribed by the Employees Pension Scheme Act 1995.  On perusal of the case of the complainant in the light of the Act it discloses that, complainant rendered a service from 16/11/1995 and the calculation as shown below:-

Past service benefit(A)	4.843*80 = 387/- [4.843 (for service rendered from 16.11.1995 to date of superannuation as per Table B factor) X 80 (Years of service up to 11 years and salary up to Rs.2,500/- P.M) will comes to Rs.387/-]
Pensionable Salary after 31.08.2014	Rs. 9,833/-
Actual Service	Pensionable Service in wage celling Rs.6,500/- up to 31.08.2014 i.e. 18 years 09 months 15 days (6849 in days)
	Pensionable Service in wage celling Rs.15,000/- after 31.08.2014 i.e. 01 years 08 months 03 days (635 in days)
Total Pensionable Service	20 years, 06 months 14 days
Weightage of 02 years	02 years is calculated (730 days)
Total Eligible service for benefits including weightage	22 years 06 months 14 days
Pension as per Formula (B)	For Service up to 31.08.2024 =(6849+730) x 6,500/- = 1,928/-           70 * 365 6849 days is Pensionable Service prior 31.08.2014 and 730 days is 2 years weightage.
Pension as per Formula (C)	For Service from 01.09.2014 = 640 x 9,833/- = 246/-        70*365 640 days is Pensionable from 01.09.2014
Total Pension Payable (A+B+C)	= Rs.387+Rs.1,928 + Rs.246 = Rs.2,561/-
Total Pension Payable	Rs.2,561/-

 

Hence, as per the calculation shown above that, the pension granted by considering the past service benefit (Rs.387/-+ Rs.1,928) as well as formula pension Rs.246/- in toto amount into Rs.2,561/-.  Admittedly complainant retired from service on 31/05/2016 and the commencement of the pension is from 01/06/2016 and the pension is released to an extent of Rs.2,561/- along with required 02 years weightage.  On over all perusal of the calculation done by the OP as per the prescribed formula under the Act we find that no fault from the side of the OP in calculating the pension given to the complainant.  Further the calculation done by the OP is in accordance with formula and the OP is also fixed the pension by giving the 02 years weightage as detailed in the above calculation.  Hence the complainant himself misconstrued the calculation and also failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, under circumstances complainant is not entitled for the any relief.  Accordingly we answered the Point No.(1) & (2) in the Negative.

 

16. 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 25^th DAY OF MARCH 2024)

 

 

            MEMBER                                  PRESIDENT