DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESAL  COMMISSION

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C. C.  CASE  NO. 258/2018

           Date of Filing:                         Date of Admission:                               Date of Disposal:                

          14.06.2018                                   26.06.2018                                        14.12.2022

P R E S E N T               :-        Debasis Mukhopadhyay……………..President

  :-        Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………. Member.

                                      :-        Sri Abhijit Basu……………………….Member

JUDGMENT / FINAL ORDER

The complainant filed this  case under Section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The complainant stated that her husband Swapan Kr. Sadhu was a part time employee working at M/s. Everest Engineering Tools Maker and also M/s. Air Equipments Works and he was a covered employee of EPF Scheme 1952 and EPS Scheme 1995 for both the establishments holding P.F and Pension Account No. WB/TLO/25327/2 and WB/TLO/11065/47. P.F and Pension Fund contribution was deducted and deposited as statutory rate through his employers and both the accounts were maintained at Sub Regional Office, Barrackpore. After leaving from the service on 30.09.1999 and 30.04.2008 from the above two establishments the complainant’s husband applied for settlement of P.F and Pension Fund which was settled by EPFO, SRO, Barrackpore. The monthly reduced pension was granted and made through P.P. O. No.WB/TLO/24445 @ Rs. 525/- p.m. with effect from 07.07.2006 UBI, Hridaypur Branch account No.1408010180542 and P.P.O. No.WB/TLO/38051 @ Rs. 814/-p.m. with effect from 26.06.2009 through P.N..B, Barasat Branch A/c. No. 3910000108102339. After the death of her husband on 04.02.2011 the complainant was drawing  pension from UBI, Hridaypur, but no pension was drawing from PNB, Barasat Branch. In order to regularize the matter the complainant applied for merging of two pensions into one single pension with effect from 26.06.2009 before the Assistant P.F. Commissioner who ordered to refund the amount of Rs. 23,742/- as excess amount of pension drawn by pensioner due to double pension which is not permissible as per rule. The entire amount of pension drawn from UBI was stopped from August, 2017 illegally. The opposite parties failed and neglected to consider the complainant’s case as represented by the complainant several times and therefore it was a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant filed this case praying for a direction to the opposite parties for consideration of letter dated 14.08.2017 of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 14,864/- as per details given in the complaint and also for compensation and cost.

The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying the allegations  of the complainant. The opposite parties stated that they came to know from the complainant’s letter dated 14.08.2017 that her husband was drawing two pensions and that the pensionerdied

Contd/-2

C. C.  CASE  NO. 258/2018

:: 2 ::

on 04.02.2011 and widow pension started from 05.02.2011 in respect of P.P.O. No. WB/TLO/24445 and paid up to July, 2017. The O.P stated that no intimation of death of pensioner or claim for widow pension was received in respect of P.P.O. No. WB/TLO/38051 and presently widow pension is stopped due to recovery of excess pension paid through second pension vide P.P. O. No.WB/TLO/38051.

The O.Ps further stated that if any member is drawing one pension from one establishment then claiming pension from second establishment the member has to declare previous pension in details in the pension claim form. But the pensioner did not declare his previous pension details intentionally and fraudulently. As per provision of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 para 6A a member of the employee pension fund shall continue to be such member till he attains age of 58 years or he avails the withdrawal benefit to which he is entitled or under para 14 of the scheme or dies or the pension is vested in him whichever is earlier. The pensioner in this case opted his first pension from 23.05.2006 and his pensionfund membership has been ceased from 24.05.2006. Second pension that pensioner was drawing was illegal and such pension drawn from 26.06.2009 to December, 2011 amounting to Rs. 23,742/- is to be recovered. The O.Ps stated that there is no provision in the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 to merge both pensions. Since second P.P.O. was illegal so the pension already paid on this account is to be recovered from the complainant and therefore the case is liable to be dismissed.

From the contentions of the parties as per written complaint and the written version it appears that the points for consideration in this case are whether the case is maintainable or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.

Decision with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the complainant by filing written argument submitted that whenever the employer deducted P.F amount from employees account and deposited the same with Provident Fund Authority who accepted the contributions then the P.F. Authority cannot deny disbursing the same and the P.F. Authority admitted the fact that they received contributions from two separate establishments and therefore now the P.F. Authority cannot deny the complainant’s lawful claim because the complainant’s husband’s money was deducted and deposited to the P.F. Authority in both the case and it was the complainant’s husband money that is being repaid by the opposite parties. He also submitted that under section 2F of the EPF and M.P. Act 1952, the part time employee is also termed as employees as eligible for P.F. Membership. He referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal 8658 to 8659/ 2019 dated 04.11.2022 that enhanced pension is admissible when higher contribution is made. He submitted that order of rejection of pension and deposit of Rs. 23,742/- by the O.Ps was illegal and bad in law. He prayed for reliefs as per prayer made in the complaint.

The Ld. Advocate of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 by filing written argument submitted that the entire case of the opposite parties was fully stated in the written version and neither complainant’s husband nor the complainant declared double pension for more than 6 years and such double pension was illegal and therefore order of recovery of excess pension was made. He also submitted that no provision is available in the PPS 1995 scheme to merge both pensions. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as per written complaint, written version, the evidence on record and the submissions of both sides it is found that the facts are mostly admitted.

The main point of dispute is whether the second pension is illegal or not.

It is found from the complainant’s case that P.F. contributions in both the organization were made by the complainant’s husband and such contributions were duly deposited to the

Contd/-3

C. C.  CASE  NO. 258/2018

:: 3 ::

P.F. Commissioner by the organizations concerned. The pension was given to the complainant’s husband from the contributions made by him and therefore the opposite party cannot deny the complainant or her husband regarding pension benefit arising out of the money deposited by the complainant’s husband as alleged by complainant. Since the pensions were being paid from the contributed amounts of the complainant’s husband as per law and there is nothing shown by the opposite parties that two part time employment was illegal and therefore the O.Ps have to give benefit for both the accounts of the complainant’s husband and widow pension is also to be made available as per both the accounts as alleged by the complainant in her complaint.

On the other hand the O.P’s contention was that the two pensions were illegal and such things happened due to suppression of facts by the complainant and her husband. It is stated that no disclosures were made in the pension form about the other pension and the complainant cannot take advantage of fraudulent and intentional suppression of fact.

Considering the contentions of both sides carefully it is found that if the two pensions are really illegal then the complainant cannot take the benefit of mistake of O.Ps for whatever reasons because illegal things cannot be ordered to be continued. At the same time it is to be noted that the employers deducted the PF for both accounts which were deposited to the O.Ps who accepted the same. The payment of pensions continued for so many years for both the accounts and now if the back amounts already disbursed are ordered to be refunded then the complainant shall suffer great loss and hardship. Therefore it is found that the O.Ps should not ask for refund of the amounts already disbursed. The O.Ps also have obligation to return the money they have accepted from the complainant’s husband towards P.F for the second account which was stated to be illegal because the O.Ps when failed to disburse the pension they should not be allowed to digest the money deposited to them.  

Accordingly it is held that if the two pension accounts cannot be continued or merged into a single one for any legal bar then the O.P  should not ask for refund of back pension from the complainant who as a result of which must face great hardship and in convenience. The O.Ps also failed to prove that there was any malafide intention of complainant or her husband or any suppression of fact on their part regarding the second pension. The O.Ps are also in that case to refund the complainant  all the amount received by them from the complainant’s husband time to time regarding the second P.F account along with interest thereon because the O.P cannot take the money from complainant’s husband and then refuse to disburse the pensions. If they cannot disburse the pension then they must refund all the amounts mistakenly received by them. It should be taken into consideration that the provision of pension and P.F are all to help the poor citizens for their livelihood and the legislation is welfare legislation for the common people of the country.  

The issues are accordingly decided partly in favour of complainant.

            Hence,

             It is Ordered

that the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest against the opposite parties.

The opposite parties are to directed continue payment of pension for the first account of complainant from the month it was stopped with all arrears and not to claim any refund of the back pension already paid to the complainant.

The O.Ps are also to take steps within two months from this date for making accounts of all the money accepted by them for the second account from the complainant’s husband and refund the same to the complainant along with 6% interest per annum thereon from the date of filing of this case till repayment.

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

Dictated & Corrected by me                      

President                                                                                                                  President

Member                                                                                                               Member