ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.
The complainant was working as Maistery in Peeling Section at Cashew factory owned and managed by the 2nd opp.party, that he entered in service under 2nd opp.party’s establishment during the year 1980, that he continued his service till 31..12.2004, that the complainant completed his age of 58 on 30..6..2002, that the complainant’s date of birth is 1..7..1944, that thereupon the Provident Fund Retirement Pension fell due from 1..7..2002 onwards, that for calculating his pensionable service the period from 1..7..1981 to 30..6..2002 can be considered, that the past service period is from 1..7..1981 to 19..11..1995 which comes to 14 years, that the actual service period is from 16..11..1995 to 30..6..2002, the date on which he completed his 58 years of age, that it comes to 7 years, that therefore his total pensionable service period is 14 +7 years ie. 21 years, that hereby adding actual service and past service his pensionable service comes to 21 years, that as it comes more than 20 years he is eligible for getting 2 years as weightage, that therefore total pensionable service on 14+7+2 + 23 years, that the complainant aggregate monthly pension is the totality of actual service benefit plus past service benefit ie. Rs.471/-. 34+325 + Rs.796.34, that the complainant already opts for commutation under paragraph-h 12 A of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the maximum one-third of his pension can be commuted so as to pay hundred time the monthly pension, that this is normally the commuted value of the pension, that it comes to 1/3x796x100 =Rs.26,533/-, that after commutation the monthly pension payable to the complainant is Rs.796-265 = 531/-, that hence after commuting the pension, the complainant is eligible to get monthly pension to the tune of Rs.531/-. Hence the complaint.
The opp.parties filed version contending that, as per the break certificate issued by the 2nd opp.party there was a continuous break for one year and excess prior to 1..4..1988, that as per the proviso 2 [F] of EPFS 1971 such period cannot be regularized and his service up to 31..3..1988 is treated as ceased and commenced again from 1..4..1988 to 15..1..1995 is 7 years 7 month including 1110 days of non contributory service which was regularized by diverting Rs.1926 from PF account, that his wages as on 16..11.1995 is Rs. 1228/- and not Rs.3666/- and wages as on attaining 58 years is Rs.2808/-, that minimum past service benefit under para 12 [4] is Rs.600/- per month provided the past service is 24 years, that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and past service benefit taken together shall be proportionally less subject to a minimum of Rs.325/- per month, that so the pension comes to 600x11/24 = Rs.275/- which will be raised to the minimum of Rs.325/-, that since Rs.108 being 1/3 is commuted and Rs.33 being [10%] the premium toward return of capital is to be reduced the monthly pension now paid is 325-108-33 = Rs.184/-, that his option for ROC under para 13 [1] enables his nominee to get Rs.21,700/- on his death, that salary and pensionable salary are different, that monthly salary includes emoluments other than that specified as pay, that contribution is required only for pay, that pensionable salary has been taken for the period from 7/2001 to 6/02, that salary stated by the applicant is as on 31..12..2004 when he retired at the age of 60 years, that salary at the age of 58 is to be taken, that during 7/01 to 6/02 he had 31 days break and hence he had 334 days contributory period, that total salary for the said period as Rs.31,258/- that since there is 31 days con contributory period pensionable salary is 31258 x30/334 = Rs.2802, that in order to get weightage the member will have to complete 20 years of pensionable service in EPS 1995 ie from 15..11..1995. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.
2. Reliefs and cost.
For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Exts. P1 to P:3
.
For the opp.parties DW.1 was examined and marked Exts. D1 to D4
POINT :1
For deciding the deficiency in service, the first point to be decided is whether the complainant is eligible for 14 years past service pension. In this case there is no dispute that the complainant joined the EPF scheme on 1..7..1981 and completed 58 years of age on 1..7..2002. According to the complainant his past service period is 14 years. For contradicting the said contention opp.party 1 produced Ext. D2 the Break in service details. After taking evidence, complainant could not discard Ext. D2. Hence Ext. D2 has to be taken a as break in service details. On verification of Ext. D2 the past service period is 8 years, The opp.party raised a contention that as per provision 2 [f] of EFPFS 1971, if there is a break of more than one year, the membership of the complainant is treated as ceased and commenced again from 1988. Complainant contented that the complainant’s case never comes under the provision incorporated in the letter portion in the definition ‘reckonable service’ under para 2 [f] of the Family Pension Scheme 1971. Even if the contention of the complainant is accepted, on the basis of Ext. D2 the complainants total past service is 8 years otherwise the complainant has to remit the contribution for the break in service period. Hence the past service benefit is arrived at as per para 12 [3] [b]. As per para 12 [3] [b] the complainant’s minimum past service benefit is Rs.325/- The point found accordingly.
POINT 2
The complainant’s actual service is from 16..11.1995 to 1..7..2002 the date on attaining 58 years of age. As per Ext. D2 the pensionable service in actual service is 3 years.
Hence as per the provisions, the complainant’s total pensionable service is past service period 8 +actual service period 3 ie 11 years. Hence the complainant is lnot eligible for getting weightage of 2 years.
For calculating the average monthly pay as per Ext. D2, para 11 [2] is applicable. Monthly salary includes emoluments other than that specified as pay. Contribution is required only for pay. As per EPS 1995 salary at the age of 58 is to be taken and not salary at the age of 60. On the basis of Ext. D2 during 7/2001 to 6/02 the complainant had 31 days break and hence he had only 334 days contributing period. Total salary for the said period is Rs.31,258/-. Ext. P2 shows that the contribution remitted to the complainant for the period from Apri 2001 to March 2002 and not the salary. Hence as per para 11 [2] the pensionable salary is 31258 x 30/334 = Rs.2802/- Minimum past service benefit under para 12 [4] is Rs.600 /- per month provided the past service is 24 years. If it is less than 24 year, the pension payable and past service benefit taken together. Hence here the pension comes to Rs.275/- which will be raised to the minimum of Rs.325/- Since Rs.108/- being 1/3 is commuted and Rs.33/- being [10%]the premium towards return of capital is to be reduced. Here the monthly pension entitled to the complainant is Rs.184/-
On considering the entire evidence we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.
In the result the complainant fails and the same is hereby dismissed without cost.
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2012.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Basheer
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Pension sanctioned order dt. 5.12..2008
P2. – Salary certificate
P3. – Annual statement receipts
List of witnesses for the opp.parties
DW.1. – K.P. Balagopalan
List of documents for the opp.parties
D1. – Amendment to 1971
D2. – Break certificate
D3. – Notification
D4 – Pension payment order
