ADV. RAVI SUSHA,MEMBER. This complainant prays to direct the opp.party to pay montly pension under the EPF Scheme to pay compensation and cost. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows
The complainant as a cashew worker in the shelling section of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Factory No.29. The complainant retired from service on superannuation on 1.7.2005 after completion of 34 years continuance service on attaining the age of 58 years. The complainant was a member of Provident Fund Organization vide PF No.KR/1198/813. The opp.party granted her pensionary benefits as per the Pension Payment Order. According to the PPO she has got 33 years of service that even though she has got 33 years of service she is now getting Rs.809/- as monthly pension. She alleged that she is entitled more than Rs.1000/- as monthly pension. Her co-workers having the same year of service are getting more than Rs. 1000/- as monthly pension. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending that the complainant was an employee of Factory No.29 of Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation. She joined Employees Provident Fund on 1.5.1973 with EPF Account No.KR/1198/813. As per the statutory return in EPF Form No.2 declaration-cum-nomination form executed, signed and filed by her to this office duly countersigned by the employer her date of birth is 1.7.1947. The Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 came into effect on 1.3.1971 and the complainant is a member of the Scheme with effect from her date of joining the Provident Fund ie. on 1.5.1973. The Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 provides monthly pension to its members who have attained 50/58 and have completed 10 years of minimum eligible service before completing58 years of age. The complainant when completed58 years applied in Form No.F. 10D for pension under EPS 1995 through her employer along with all required documents. Her pension application was duly processed and eligible monthly pension has been sanctioned to her and she is still drawing pension with PPO No.51826. The allegation in the complaint is that she is entitled to get more amount as monthly pension than that she has been allowed is not correct and hence denied. Quantum of monthly pension under EPS 1995 depends upon various facts such as pensionable salary, past service up to 15.11.1995 service from 16.11.1995, non contributory period in service etc. The quantum of pension is sanctioned to the complainant according to the provisions of EPS 1995. The complainant joined Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 with effect from 1.5.1973 but the complainant had not contributed to the fund for total 6178 days ie. for a total of 16 years 11 months and 8 days from 1.5.1973 to 15.11.1995 since there was no work in the factory. According to the provisions of the EFP Scheme, 1971 then existing if there is a period of non contributory service for more than one year the service of that member is treated as ceased on the date on which the period of break commenced. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995. 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1and P2 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Exts. D1 and D2 are marked. POINTS: The question to be decided is what is the actual monthly pension amount entitled to the complainant. Quantum of monthly pension under the 1995 scheme depends upon various facts such as pensionable salary past service upto 15.11.1995 service from 16.11.1995 ie actual service, non-contributory period in service. According to the opp.party the complainant had not contributed to the fund for a total 6178 days. According to para 2[6] of EFPS 1971 if there is a period of non-contributory Service for more than one year the service of that member is treated as ceased on the date on which the period of break commenced Para 6 deals with retention of membership in that scheme ie. the period of break have been regularized by remitting the Family Pension Fund contributions with interest or by diverting the required amount from member’s Provident Fund account. Here the complainant’s non-contributory periods in the service were regularized by directing Rs.17782/- from her EPF account in order to allow maximum pension benefit. Complainant’s counsels and argued that contribution is payable only when wages is paid. The cessation of work not due to the fault of the worker which are only a fault of the employee and hence in no way the worker is liable to pay any amount for regularization of this period. On hearing both sides we are of the view that as per para 2[6] of Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and para 6 the complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.17782/- from her EPF account for regularization of non-contributory period in order to allow maximum pension benefit. The aggregate of actual service and the past service shall be treated as eligible service. The date of commencement of pension as per PF records in 1.7.2005. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that as per factory records the complainant has terminated on 31st December 2005 and the date of commencement of pension of the complainant is 1.1.2006. In the absence of any materials supporting to this argument the PF records can be taken into account. From the evidence the reduced pension amount due to ROC isRs.458/-. The aggregate of actual service benefit and past service benefits come about Rs.809/- Since the complainant had opted for commutation and Return of capital the corresponding amount were deducted for the complainant’s monthly pension. On considering the entire evidence we are of the opinion that the opp.party has not violated any provisions of the Act. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed without cost. The complainant is not entitled to get more amount than Rs.458/- as pension which is being paid every month. Dated this the 30th day of October, 2010. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Chandramathy List of documents for the complainant P1. – ESI Card [Duplicate] P2. – Pension Payment Order. List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. - Abdul Latheef List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Break in service D2. – Pension Payment Order. | 
