ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. This is complaint seeking enhancement6 of pensionary benefits. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant as a cashew worker in the peeling section of the St. Maries Cashew Factory on 22.12.1974. and retired from service on superannuation on 2007 after completion of 34 years . The complainant is having 22 years of past Service and 12 years of Actual service But the opp.party has calculated the past service as 5 years and total service as 16 years. The complainant was a member of Provident Fund Organisation vide PF A/c.No.2364/616 . Provident Contribution for the period 1974-75 was recovered from her salary. The complainant is entitled to get pension at the rate of Rs.1,200/- but she has been sanctioned Rs.882/- only. The complainant is entitled to get the minimum pension of Rs,1200/- per month considering the service. The other non-members who retired with the complainant and having the same joining and retirement date are getting full pension. The reduced pension awarded to the complainant is due to the negligent act of the opp.party. The complainant is eligible to get the prescribed pension from the opp.party as per law. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending that the complainant was an employee of M/s. St. Mary Cashew Factory, Kottarakkara, she joined EPF on 1.3.2007 with EPF No.KR/2364/616 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 1.3.1947. The complainant is a member of EFP 1971 Scheme from the date of her joining in the EPF Schemes with effect from 1.3.1974 The Employees Pension Scheme 1995 provides monthly pension to its members who hae attained 50/58 and have completed 10 years minimum eligible service before completing 58 years of age. The complainant when completed 50 years age applied for early 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 her and she is still drawing pension with PPO.No.62393. The allegation in the complaint 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 EPF Scheme, 1971 with effect from 1.3.1974, but the complainant had not contributed to the fund for a total of 17 years 15 days from 1.3.1974 to 15.11..1995 since there was no work in the factory. 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. P1 to P15 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marked. POINTS: Here the only question to be decided is whether the complainant is eligible to get enhanced pension than now receiving. There is no dispute that the complainant had 34 years of service. But the dispute is with respect to the non-contribution period towards the pension scheme. As per Ext. D1 the working days non-working days non-contributing days etc are mentioned. According to Ext. D1 the complainant’s contributory period in the past service is 5 years and that in the actual service is 6 years. These periods are considered for determining the pension. The documents produced from the side of complainant does not show the number of working days during each year. Hence for calculating non-contributing period Ext. D1 can be taken into account. Pensionable service means the service rendered by the member for which c contribution have been received or receivable. As per para 9 [b] eligible service means the aggregate of actual service and the past service. Provided that if there is any period in the past service for which contribution twards the Family Pension Scheme 1971 has not been received, the said period shall count as eligible service only if the contributing there of have been received in the Employees Pension Fund. Here documents produced from the side of complainant shows the contribution towards PF only during each year and not towards Family Pension Scheme 1971. As per para 17 [3] the member to join the scheme from 1.3.1971 on remittance of past period contribution with interest there on. Here the complainant has not remitted the past period contribution with interest to enhance her pensionable service. On considering the entire evidence we are of the opinion that the opp.party has not violated any provision of the Act and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without cost. Dated this the 30TH day of October, 2010. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant P1. – ESI card P2. – Pension Payment Order P3. – PF receipt 1975-76 P4. – PF receipt 79-80 P5. – PPO of Radhamony P6.- PF receipt 78-79 P7. – PF receipt 81-82 P8. – PF receipts 82-83 P9. – PF receipts 87-88 P10. – PF receipts 88-89 P11. – PF receipts 90-91 P12.- PF receipt 92-93 P13. - PF receipts 93-94 P14. – PF receipts 94-95 P15. – Wages card. List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Abdul Latheef P.P. List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Authorization letter D2. – Break in service certificate. | 
