BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 28^th February 2017

PRESENT

  SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

  SMT. LAVANYA M. RAI                  : HON’BLE MEMBER

COMMON ORDERS IN

C.C. Nos. 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,

41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46/2016

(Admitted on 29.01.2016)

In C.C. No. 29/2016

Mr. M Jayanth,

S/o M Tukra,

Age: 70 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Shiva Sadana, Raktheshwari Temple Road,

Nehur Nagar, Puttur Tq,

Dist: DK. Karnataka.

In C.C. No. 30/2016

Mr. H.R. Narasimha Murthy,

S/o A. Ramakrishnaiah,

Kaveri Nilaya, Moodukonaje Village,

Padukonaje Post, Mangaluru Tq,

Dist: D K. Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.32/2016

Mr. K. Puttanna Gowda,

S/o K Annu Gowda,

Kallaji House, Post: Bangadi,

Belthangady Tq,

Dist: D K. Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.33/2016

Mr. B. Shankar,

S/o Late Bhagoji Rao,

Age: 64 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Vimala Bettampady House,

Near Old Gate,

Sullia, Dist: DK

Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.34/2016

Mr. Annu Poojary,

S/o Dombayya Poojary,

Kuntalpady House, Shambur Post,

Bantwal Tq, Dist: DK

Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.35/2016

Mr. Abdul Aziz,

S/o Davood,

Age: 64 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Bolantil House, 34 Nekkiladi, Post,

Uppinangadi Village, Puttur Tq, Dist: DK

Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.36/2016

Mr. T. Balakrishna,

S/o Beerappa,

Age: 65 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

D.No.2/144B (10), Kaustubha, 2^nd Cross,

Right Road, Kumpala, Post: Kotekar,

Mangalore, Dist: DK Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.37/2016

Mr. Ramachandra Shety,

S/o Doomanna Shetty,

Age: 67 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Jappu Mogaruthota House, Post & Village,

Jappinamogaru, Mangalore Tq,

Dist: Dk. Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.38/2016

Mr. Abbas Berry G.K,

S/o Kunhippa Berry,

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Militari Grownd, Old Gate,

Sullia, Distr: DK,

Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.39/2016

Mr. Vishweshwara Acharya,

S/o Dasappa Acharya M,

Age: 58 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Maroli House, Edamangala Post & Village,

Sullia Tq, Dist: DK,

Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.40/2016

Mr. P.K. Mani,

S/o P.K. Kasu,

Age: 59 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

L.B.17, New KHB Colony, Kunjatha Bail,

Kavoor, Mangalore, Dist: DK,

Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.41/2016

Mr. T. Lokkaiah Gowda,

S/o Shivappa Gowda,

Age: 63 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Thamblaju House, Saibaji Post, Belthangady,

Dist: DK  574229,

Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.42/2016

Mr. S. Chomanna Gowda,

S/o Shivappa Gowda,

Age: 61 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Melapala House, Padnoor Village,

Puttur Tq, Dist: DK,

Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.43/2016

Mr. T. Hasan,

S/o Sayyadali Byari,

Age: 54 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Kulala Mutt Gudde, House No.12227,

Dist: DK, Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.44/2016

Mr. Ratnakar Prabhu,

S/o H. Keshava Prabhu,

Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Keshava Krupa, Post: Kanyadi Dharmasthala,

Belthangady Tq, Dist: DK,

Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.45/2016

Mr. K.Rama,

S/o Manku Poojary,

Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Shri Ganesh Durga Nilaya, D.No.3.21.24, Alape,

Battarbettu, Post: Padil, Mangaluru, Dist: DK

Karnataka.

IN C.C.No.46/2016

Mr. M. Shanthappa,

S/o Venkappagowda,

Age: 62 years,

Occ: Retired Employee,

Shri Guru Raghavendra Nilaya, Bendrala,

Mekara, Puttur Post, Kikkamadunur,

Puttur Tq, Dist: DK,

Karnataka.

                                                   ….. COMPLAINANTS

(Advocate for the Complainants: Sri SRPK)

VERSUS

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,

Regional Office, Silva Road,

High Lands, Mangalore  575002.

                                                               …...........OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for the Opposite party: Sri JNR)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaints filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against opposite party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     These case are identical set of facts and cases pleaded by both sides are also identical.  Hence by this common order these cases are being disposed off.

2.     The complainants contends they were working in the KSRTC Puttur Depot, and are now retired.  The details of their service are as mentioned in the tabulation below. These complainants claim they are entitled for family pension under the Employees Pensions Scheme 1995 which replace then existing employees funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act 1952.  Under the 1995s scheme the complainants are entitled for weightage and benefit of minimum pension under para 12 which was not granted by the Opponents despite these complainants already attaining the age of superannuation age of 58 years.  The complainants claim as para 32 of the scheme of 1995 opposite party are required to give annual relief by making valuation are made by opposite party and no relief given to complainants. They also claim interest on the arrears at 12% as per para 17 (A) of Scheme of 1995.

3.     Contending that the climates are consumers and the opposite party the authority under the scheme of 1995 having failed to consider this request of complainants which they are entitle under the provision of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and to give weightage seeks remedy under from the opposite parties as clamed under these complaints.  

4.     The some of the suspense of contends of the opposite party in their version filed are admitted the benefit under para 10 (2) to complainants and states that it has already been given to these complainants.  But in respect of the based on the valuation, the central government at its discretion may alter the date of contribution to the scheme or any benefit admissible under the scheme no enforceable rights accrue to the complaints by virtue of para 32 of the scheme.    Hence seeks dismissal.

 5.      In support of all the above Complaints in C.C. Nos. 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46/2016 the complainants filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on them.  On behalf of the opposite party Mr. V Hussenappa (Rw1) Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Pension) also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Documents produced by both sides are marked at Ex. C series for complainants and Ex. ‘R’ series for opposite party as detailed in the annexure here below.

III.     In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether there is consumer dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:         

                            Point No. (i): Affirmative

                            Point No. (ii): Affirmative           

                            Point No. (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.      POINTS No. (i): In these cases the complainants were members of Employee’s Family Scheme 1979 subsequently to Employee’s Pension Scheme (for short scheme of 1995) and they are entitled for the benefit of scheme and are getting pension thereunder from opposite party is not at all in dispute.  The opposite party in the written version mention he has already worked out the pension entitlement and revised by allowing it in and there is no deficiency in service.  However he disputes the claim made under para 12 (3.5) and 32 of the scheme claimed by the complainants and also mentioned under para 17 A of the Scheme 1995.  Amongst these cases in respect of the claimants in 29/16 and 32/16 the complainants receiving monthly pension less than of Rs.1000/ in respect of other cases these complainants claim they have been receiving monthly pension in excess of Rs.1,000/ as detailed in the table above. 

2.     Opposite party did claim that he had re-fixed the pension entitlement and in respect of the CC.No.29 and CC.No.32/2016 opposite party disputes the claim of complainants that they are entitled for a minimum pension under the scheme of 1995.  Considering these disputes it is a case under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act between the parties.   Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINT NO. (ii):    In the first batch of case of 29 and 32/16 in all these cases the complainants claim they came to know about in the error in the calculation of the pension by opposite party and on coming to know from one of their colleagues and as such they have given the representation to opposite party to set-right the things but did not comply.  Of course opposite party did not raise the question of limitations in these cases.  In this two cases the complainant claims under para 12 (3 -5) (b) they are entitled for minimum assured pensions for past and present service separately as defined in the Rules 1995.  They have claimed that the two different pensions are to be calculated differ for past and present services.  In the respect of this claim they mention under rule 12 (3-5) (a) & (b) reads thus:

12. Monthly Members Pension:

(1) A member shall be entitled to:

(a) Superannuation pension if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years;

(b) early pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 10 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years;

(2) In the case of a new entrant the amount of monthly superannuation pension or early pension, as the case may be, shall be computed in accordance with the following factors, namely:

Monthly members pension = Pensionable salary X Pensionable service

                                   …................................................................

                                                                       70

(3) In the case of an existing member in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension is after 16^th November, 2005:

(i) Superannuation/early pension shall be equal to the aggregate of:

  (a) Pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of Pensionable service rendered from the 16^th November, 1995 or Rs.635/ per month whichever is more;

  (b) Past service pension shall be as given below:

 The past service pension payable on completion of 58 years of age on 16.11.95

The amount under column (2) or column (3) above, as the case may be shall be multiplied by the factor given in Table B corresponding to the period between 16.11.95 and the date of exit to arrive at past service pension payable.

(ii) The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be subject to a minimum of Rs.800/ per month provided the eligible service is 24 years.  Provided further if it is less than 24 years, the pension as computed above shall be reduced proportionately subject to a minimum of Rs.450/ per month.

(4) in the case of an existing member and in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension is between 16^th November, 2000 and 16^th November, 2005

(i) The superannuation/early pension shall be equal to the aggregate of:

(a) Pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16^th November, 1995 or Rs. 438/ per month whichever is more;

(b) past service pension as provided in sub paragraph (3)

(ii) The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be subject to a minimum of Rs.600/ per month provided the eligible service is 24 years.  Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum of Rs.325/ per month.

(5) In the case of an existing member and in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension is before 16^th November 2000

(i) the superannuation/early pension shall be equal to the aggregate of:

(a) pension as determined under sub paragraph 92) for the period of service rendered from the 16^th November, 1995 per month or Rs.335/ per month whichever is more.

(b) past service pension as provided in sub paragraph (3)

(ii) The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be subject to the minimum of Rs.500/ per month, provided the eligible service is 24 years.  Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of Rs. 265/ per month.

 As per rules quoted about the case of the complainant in cc.32/16 is in our view falls under sub rule 4 as he retired after 16^th November 2000 and 16^th November 2005 and also under sub 3 of rule 12 .

2.     Even in respect of other complainants as well as the complainants’ claim for benefits as mentioned above in Rule 12 (3.5) (a) of past service and Rule 12 (3.5) (b) of present service. As to entitlement of the claimants pension under the scheme of 1995 is settled in favour of these type of pension under this scheme in reported judgment K. Chennakesavalu vs. the

Employee Provident Fund Organisation, Rep by its Commissioner, New Delhi and Others in ILR 2004 KAR 2859 which was approved in subsequent case laws :

Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 Para 12 (4) (a) & (b) PARA 12(4) Applies to those who have attained the age of 48 years but less than 53 years Para 12(4) (b) to be read in the light of para 12(4) Petitioner, a member of Employees Family Pension Scheme retired at 52 years Respondents fixed his monthly pension at Rs.399/ Petitioners request for re consideration of pension was rejected Writ Petition by petitioner to High Court The words quantum of Rs.600/ ought not to be confused to total amount under Para 12(4)9a) & (b) Intention is to pay a sum equivalent to pension plus past service benefits  Respondents directed to quantify monthly pension at Rs.1038/ less 9%.  Clarifications issued by respondents cannot run against the existing provisions and that too when it is concerning social welfare legislation.

In CC.30/2016 the complainant had laid the claim under Rule 12 (4)(a) & 12 (4)(b) as quoted above.  In view of the reported case laws and the entitlement of complainants pension has to be re fixed under the above rules. 

3.    In another reported case Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Pension Scheme Organization Vs. H.C. Shiva Rudrappa, & Othrs in (2014) CPJ 470 (NC),  in the facts of the present nature considered under para 12 (3) read with Para 10 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 Rules it was held at para 15 of this Reported Case reads thus:

15. On reading of part-3(iv) of 1995 Scheme it is evident that under the scheme the assets of Family Pension Scheme, 1971 stood vested and transferred to the Employees’ Pension Fund, 1995.  Undisputedly, the complainants had contributed to the Employees Pension Fund created under 1971 Scheme.  Since the aforesaid amount got transferred to the Employees Pension Fund created under 1995  Scheme, the contributions of the complainants/employees for the period prior to November, 1995 were obviously received in the Pension Fund 1995.  Therefore, the period of service rendered by the respective complainants while they were members of the 1971 Scheme falls within the definition of pensionable service quoted above.  If the aforesaid period is taken into account, the pensionable service rendered by the respective complainants is more than 20 years, as such they are entitled to added advantage of two years in terms of para 10(2) of the scheme.  Thus, the impugned orders of the Fora below cannot be faulted.  In our aforesaid view, we find support from the above referred judgments of Co ordinate Benches relied upon by the respondents.

4.     Hence in our view the opposite party cannot escape from responsibility of re fixing under these Rules the Pension of these claimants. 

5.     In respect of the claim of the complainants in para 32 of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 is concerned, the complainants claim that they are entitled for Annual relief under Rule 32.  This claim is made by all the claimants of these case.  Rule 32 reads thus:

32. Valuation of the Employees Pension Fund and review of the rates of contributions and quantum of the pension and other benefits

(1) The Central Government shall have an annual valuation of the Employees Pension Fund made by a Valuer appointed by it.

      (2) At any time, when the Employees Pension Fund so permits the Central Government may alter the rate of contributions payable under this scheme or the scale of any benefit admissible under this Scheme of the period for which such benefit may be given.

Ongoing through Rule 32 the Central Government is bound to the Annual Valuation of Employees Pension Fund done by the Valuer appointed by it.  Further opposite party claims in such valuation since from 2001 and as to when such valuation is made annual relief would be granted to these claimants.  Whenever such valuation to mention in the present case opposite party shall be directed to pay the dues to claimants through appropriate authority.

6.     In respect of the relief claimed under Section 17 A of the scheme in Employees Pension Fund 1995 is concerned it speaks about interest at the rate of 12% payable on arrears amount.  As such claim was up held in I (2008) CPJ 306 (NC) in Provident Fund Commissioner under v/s Sulekha the opposite party is contended that he had already worked out entitlements by applying the benefit which the complainants are entitle to in such of the cases where the benefits payable are already applied and that the question of fresh application could not arise.  However it was pointed out by opposite party in all these cases in our view of the reported cases to work-out the entitlement of the complainants pension in the past service pension and pensionable services as detailed above and work out entitlement of the claimants and opposite party cannot escape liability to pay interest at 12%.   As such all the claimants are to entitled for interest at 12% per annum on outstanding due including on the amounts already paid to them.

6.     As can be seen from the allegations made by opposite party and the stand taken that there is need not like to mention pension entitlement of this claims.  However, at the cost of repetition we may mention of going through Rule 12 (3.5) (a) sub clause at sub clause (3) (b) & sub clause 4 of para 12 with sub clause 2 read together speak as to the entitlements of the employee pensions.  It has to be worked out by opposite party in respect of the claims in each case.

7.     In this case as can be seen from the written version and also in the notes of arguments of opposite party has claimed that he had already calculated the entitlement and credited the entitlement amount to the accounts of these claimants.   Suffice to mention, it is necessary that opposite party shall be directed in each of these cases to calculate a fresh entitlement of all these claimants and in the light of the observations and conclusions of arrears as above to work out the arrears and pay all the outstanding arrears to the complainants.  Hence we answer point No.2 in affirmative in all the cases.

8.     As to the claim of complainants for compensation is concerned towards compensations and cost of all these cases in all these the amount of Rs.4,000/ each of the complainants against opposite party will meet the ends of the justice.

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following

ORDER 

     All the complaints i.e. CC. Nos. 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46/2016 are allowed.   Opposite party is directed to calculate a fresh pension entitlement of the these complainants as noted in the light of observations and reasoning above and pay the outstanding arrears to complainants with 12% interest per annum of such of the arrears from the date of the entitlement of these claimants till the date of deposits already made or to be made of payments to these complainants.

2.       Opposite party shall also pay Rs.4,000/- to these complainants towards cost.

3.     Payment shall be made within 30 days from the copy of this order.

4.    Keep original of this order in CC.29/2016 and a copy thereof in CC

Nos. 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46/2016.

      Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 18 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th February 2017)

              MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

      (LAVANYA M. RAI)                           (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

  D.K. District Consumer Forum                  D.K. District Consumer Forum

           Mangalore.                                               Mangalore.   

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.29/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. M Jayanth 

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 11.06.2003: Pensioner Portion issued by the opponent

Ex.C2: 16.11.2015: Representation Copy

Ex.C3: 16.11.2015: Postal Receipt No. C RK776515671IN

Ex.C4: 19.11.2015: Postal Acknowledged copy

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.30/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 Mr. H.R. Narasimha Murthy

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 22.07.2004: Pensioner Portion issued by  the opponent

Ex.C2: 16.11.2015: Representation Copy

Ex.C3: 16.11.2015: Postal Receipt No. C RK776515518IN

Ex.C4: 19.11.2015: Postal Acknowledged copy

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.32/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 Mr. K. Puttanna Gowda

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 24.08.2001: Pensioner Portion issued by the opponent

Ex.C2: 16.11.2015: Representation Copy

Ex.C3: 16.11.2015: Postal Receipt No. C RK776515552IN

Ex.C4: 19.11.2015: Postal Acknowledged copy

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995

     ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.33/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. B. Shankar

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 23.07.2009: Pensioner Portion issued by opponent

Ex.C2: 05.08.2014: Acknowledged copy of Representation

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.34/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Annu Poojary

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 20.03.2009: Pensioner Portion issued by  the opponent

Ex.C2: 16.11.2015: Representation Copy

Ex.C3: 16.11.2015: Postal Receipt No. C RK776513698IN

Ex.C4: 19.11.2015: Postal Acknowledged copy

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.35/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Abdul Aziz

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 15.03.2009: Pensioner Portion issued by  the opponent

Ex.C2: 16.11.2015: Representation Copy

Ex.C3: 16.11.2015: Postal Receipt No. C RK776515610IN

Ex.C4: 19.11.2015: Postal Acknowledged copy

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.36/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. T Balakrishna

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 22.12.2008: Pensioner Portion issued by  the opponent

Ex.C2: 16.11.2015: Representation Copy

Ex.C3: 16.11.2015: Postal Receipt No. C RK776515739IN

Ex.C4: 19.11.2015: Postal Acknowledged copy

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.37/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Ramachandra Shetty

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 22.10.2006: Pensioner Portion issued by the opponent

Ex.C2: 16.11.2015: Representation Copy

Ex.C3: 16.11.2015: Postal Receipt No. C RK776515795IN

Ex.C4: 19.11.2015: Postal Acknowledged copy

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.38/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 Mr. Abbas Berry G.K

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 01.06.2012: Pensioner Portion issued by  the opponent

Ex.C2: 24.11.2014: Acknowledged copy of Representation

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.39/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Vishweshwara Acharya

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 23.12.2014: Pensioner Portion issued by the opponent

Ex.C2: 16.11.2015: Copy of Representation

Ex.C3: 16.11.2015: Postal Receipt No. A RK776513843IN

Ex.C4: 19.11.2015: Postal Acknowledged

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.40/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. P.K. Mani

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 30.05.2014: Pensioner Portion issued by the opponent

Ex.C2: 24.11.2014: Acknowledged copy of Representation

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.41/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 Mr. T. Lokkaiah Gowda

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 06.11.2010: Pensioner Portion issued by the opponent

Ex.C2: 24.11.2014: Acknowledged copy of Representation

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.42/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. S. Chomanna Gowda

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 01.11.2012: Pensioner Portion issued by the opponent

Ex.C2: 24.11.2014: Acknowledged copy of Representation

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.43/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. T. Hasan

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 21.03.2014: Pensioner Portion issued by  the opponent

Ex.C2: 24.11.2014: Acknowledged copy of Representation

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.44/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Ratnakar Prabhu

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 24.04.2009: Pensioner Portion issued by the opponent

Ex.C2: 16.11.2015: Copy of Representation

Ex.C3: 16.11.2015: Postal Receipt No. A RK776513724IN

Ex.C4: 19.11.2015: Postal Acknowledged

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.45/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. K. Rama

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 12.03.2011: Pensioner Portion issued by the opponent

Ex.C2: 16.11.2015: Copy of Representation

Ex.C3: 16.11.2015: Postal Receipt No. A RK776513931IN

Ex.C4: 19.11.2015: Postal Acknowledged

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

ANNEXURE OF C.C.No.46/2016

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. M. Shanthappa

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: 30.09.2011: Pensioner Portion issued by  the opponent

Ex.C2: 05.08.2014: Acknowledged copy of Representation

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW1: Mr. V Hussenappa, Assistant P. F. Commissioner (Pension)

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex.R1: Extract copy of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995

Dated:  28.2.2017                                         PRESIDENT