DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 16th day of May, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 25/02/2022
CC/40/2022
Ravindran.P
S/o. Late Narayanan Nair
Sree valsam, Old Tile Factory
Tenur PO, Palakkad - 678 612 - Complainant
(Party in Person)
V/s
1. Asst.PF Commissioner (Pension)
EPF Organization, Regional Office
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Eranchipalam PO
Kozhikkode - 673 006
2. The PF Commissioner (Pension)
EPF Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Eranchipalam PO
Kozhikkode - 673 006 - Opposite parties
(BY Authorized Officer)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant is a pensioner under the Employees Pension Scheme of the Employees Provident Fund Organization which is hereinafter referred as EPFO.
2. His grievance is about the fixation of Pension under the above scheme. According to him his pension has not been fixed by the first opposite party as per the provisions of the said scheme and he is eligible for a pension of Rs. 2,067/- instead of the Rs. 1,399/- fixed by the First opposite party.
Though he approached the second opposite party for rectification of the anomaly, he also took the stand that the pension fixed is correct as per the scheme guidelines.
Then he approached various authorities upto the level of Chief Information Commissioner under the provisions of RTI act, but complaint remained unresolved.
Hence he has approached this Commission for rectifying the mistake in the pension calculation and getting the arrears from 15/04/2017 with interest along with Rs. 25,000/- towards cost.
3. Notices were sent to the opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed their version on 24/01/2022 and an additional version on 11/05/2022.
Further, as directed by this Commission, opposite parties submitted the Employees Pension Scheme in full, which formed the basis of their versions filed and a confirmation to the effect that the pension fixation has been done as per the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, as amended vide Government Notification number GSR 609 (E) dated 22/08/2014.
4. The issues involved in this complaint are as follows.
- Whether this Commission is having jurisdiction to examine the anomaly in Pension fixation?
- Whether the fixation of pension is as provided in the scheme?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complaint is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
E. Reliefs allowed if any.
5. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A14 as evidence. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. B1 to B3 as evidence.
Issues A & B
6. This Issue involves two parts. One is wherein the error crept in is with regard to the method of fixation as contemplated under the Act or Rules. The second one is with regard to any calculation errors while calculating the actual amount payable using the method of fixation as contemplated under the Act. When the error crept-in is in the Act/Rule, and the opposite party has carried out the calculation in accordance with the method so propounded in the Act, this Commission has no authority to interfere in the amount arrived at. In the 2nd case this Commission can interfere, provided no other statutory authority has rendered its finding.
7. It goes without saying that the portions i.e. Clauses 11 and 12 of The Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 stands judicially approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. And the Statutory Authority for consideration of the anomaly about which the complainant is aggrieved has already considered and passed orders in the complaint of the complainant herein. If the complainant has got any further grievance, the option available to the complainant is approaching any Appellate Authority under the relevant Act or approaching the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala.
8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the authority concerned and constituted under the relevant Act has already considered the complaint filed by the complainant. It is against the finding of this Authority that the complainant has approached this Commission. When a statutorily constituted Authority has considered the grievance of the complainant in detail and has passed its orders, any consideration of the same grievance by this Commission will only result in patent illegality or absurdity.
9. Therefore we hold that this Commission has no authority to consider this complaint.
10. Be as it may one error that we noted is stated below for academic reasons. The para 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme (Marked as Ext. B1) read as follows:
“Provided that the member’s monthly pension shall be determined on a prorata basis for the pensionable service upto 1st day of September 2014 at the maximum pensionable salary of Rs. 6,500/- per month and for the period there after at the maximum pensionable salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month”.
In the case of the complainant, the pension should have been calculated with pensionable salary @ Rs. 6,500/- per month for the period upto 01/09/2014 and for the period there after @ 15,000/- per month. Appendix D of Ext. A4 shows that the complainant had made contribution to the scheme taking the salary as Rs. 15,000/- from 01/09/2014 onwards. However in the calculation of prorata pension from 01/09/2014 onwards the opposite party has taken Rs. 10,892/- instead of Rs. 15,000/- as provided in the scheme. We are of the opinion that this is an anomaly in the calculation adopted by the opposite party.
Issues C, D and E
11. In view of the findings in issues A and B, we hold that the matter in dispute is not maintainable before this Commission. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 16th day of May, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Vidya.A
Member
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1 : Monthly members pension calculation details.
Ext. A2 : Letter from EPFO addressed to Additional Central and Regional PF
Commissioner.
Ext. A3 : PPO certificate of the complainant.
Ext. A4 : Letter written by the complainant to the Commissioner, EPF Sub
Regional Office, Kozhikode dated 10/10/2019.
Ext. A5 : Letter from EPFO dated 01/11/2019 addressed to the complainant.
Ext. A6 : Online RTI request form details.
Ext. A7 : Online RTI status form.
Ext. A8 : Online RTI appeal form details.
Ext. A9 : Proceedings of the 1st Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005 dated
25/05/2020.
Ext. A10: Letter from EPFO dated 08/06/2020 addressed to the complainant.
Ext. A11: Letter from Central Information Commission dated 03/02/2021 to the
complainant.
Ext. A12: Notice of Hearing for Appeal dated 25/10/2021.
Ext. A13: Order from Central Information Commission to the 2nd Appeal by
complainant.
Ext. A14: Letter from EPFO dated 10/12/2021 addressed to the complainant.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext. B1: Para 12 of the EPS Scheme of Employees Provident Fund.
Ext. B2: Para 11 of the EPS Scheme of Employees Provident Fund.
Ext. B3: Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 04/11/2022.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
Cost: Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
