The case of the complainant is that he was working as an employee in Sarvodaya Sangh Alappuzha from 1974. He relieved from duty from 28-8-2002 by voluntary retirement. But he was not received retirement benefits from employer. Then he approached Labour court for reinstatement in service. The labour court directed to pay monetary benefits by accepting the VRS scheme. Thereafter he applied for pension before the opposite party as per law. But the opposite party has not given proper pension. Thus they committed deficiency of service. This is the case of the complainant. 2. Opposite party filed version stating that the complainant covered under the establishment of Employees provident fund miscellaneous provisions Act. Complainant applied for reduced pension on 9-12-2006. For the purpose of calculation of the pension a prospective date or the date of application alone shall only be considered. Further they contented that they were already given payable pension to the complainant. If accepting the claim of the complainanteven then there will be no change in the pension amount. Since there will be no change in the pension benefits for the pensionable salary up to 6350/-. Hence complainant is only to be dismissed. 3. Considering the rival contention of both parties this forum framed following issue for the adjudication of this case. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? 4. The complainant examined and marked 7 documents as Exhibit Al to A7. Opposite party given evidence and marked 2 documents as Exhibit B 1 to B2. 5. On going through the circular No. Pension 6/6/2001 TN/Main /33598 dated 26-8-2004 it is clarified that, for the purpose of reduced pension a prospective date has to be mentioned in the application or in the absence the date of application has only to be considered. Here the case of the petitioner is that the date 28-2-2002 has to be taken for the purpose of calculation of the pension. As per regulation there are only two option, one is a future date or the date of submission of application. Here the admitted fact is that, he submitted the application only on 9-12-2006. But in the application form he given the date in column 8(a) is 28-8-2002. This date cannot be considered. Since, it is a previous date and not a prospective date. In such circumstances only the date of application is relevant. It is true that the ceasing of service is with effect from 28-2-2002. But either the complainant or the opposite party has not produced any rule or order for overlooking the circular No. Pension 6/6/2001 TN/Main /33598 dated 26-8-2004. In such circumstances this forum has no other option other than dismiss this complaint. Hence we find that the action taken by opposite party is as per law and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence complaint dismissed. No order of cost. Pronounced in open Forum, on this the 30th day of August 2008. Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW 1 - P. Sivarama Pillai (Witness) Ext. A1 - Notice dtd. 11.03.2002 (Photocopy) Ext. A2 - Relieving Order dtd. 18.08.2002 Ext. A3 - Judgment dtd. 21.01.2006 Ext. A4 - Application for monthly pension Ext. A5 - Notice dtd. 04.12.06 Ext. A6 - Registered Notice dtd. 03.06.2006 Ext. A7 - Pension payment order (Photocopy) Evidence of the opposite party:- RW 1 - Ramachandra Bhatt (Witness) Ext. B1 - Application for monthly pension (Photocopy) Ext. B2 Series - Photocopy of the Letters // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite Party/S.F. Typed by:- vo/- Compared by:- | 
