ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. The complaint is filed for getting the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 and other reliefs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complaint is a cashew worker of the 2nd opp.party and retired from service at the age of 58 years on superannuation on 1.7.2002 after completion of 30 years service. The complainant became the member of the Provident Fund Organization on 1.10.1974 vide P.F. NO.KR/1209/1111. The complainant was a member of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 including Family Pension Scheme. The 2nd opp.party deducted the entire contribution EPF and EPF from the complainant’s salary and remitted with the 2nd opp.party share with the first opp.party The complainant as a member of the EPS 1995 and applied for the eligible pension inform No.10D to the first opp.party The complainant is eligible to get full pension under the EPS 1995.There is no break in service till the employment with the 2nd opp.party. The complainant opened an SB Account vide Account No.5305 in the Indian Bank Branch Mundakkal, Kollam for getting the pension through bank The complainant is allowed Rs.325/- as pension for his service of 30 years and PF remittance of 28 years. This is quite illegal and against law and facts. The complainant reminded on 11.8.2003 for allowing the entire pension. But the 2nd opp.party replied stating the break in service and reduced remittance in PF account on 1.10.2003. The complainant have 21 years of past service in PF and 7 years service in FP Scheme 1995. The 2nd opp.party deducted the entire PF contribution from the salary of the complainant. The complainant is eligible to get the prescribed pension for his past service of 23 years before 1995. There is 7 years service under EPS 1995. The complainant have 30 years of service. The complainant is eligible to get the prescribed as on 1.7.2002 . The 1st opp.party denied the pension on time. The complainant is eligible to get the pension of about Rs. 800/- per month. . Hence the complaint. The 1st opp.party filed a version contending as follows: The complaint has joined the Employees’ Provident Fund on 1.4.1975 with EPF Account No.KR/1209/1111 Subsequently his account was transferred to his transferee account bearing EPF A/c.No.KR/2798/2612.The complainant was a member of Employees’ Family Pension Scheme 1971 upto 16.11.1995 and a member of EPS 1995 with effect from 16.11.95. The complainant acquired 58 years of age on 1.7.2002 and thereby ceased membership in EPS 1995 on 1.7.2002 he is continuing in service. The scrutiny of the pension application it was found that there was a non-contributory period of 17 years 7 months and 14 days in past service i.e. service prior to 16.11.1995. This non contributory period is as per the break in service certificate issued by the 2nd opp.party. The Non contributory service can be regularized by remitting the contribution due with interest as specified by provision to Para 9[b] of the EPS 1995.The complainant’s past service is 7 years and Pensionable service 5 years as per the EPS 1995. The complainants claim that he acquired 21 years past service and 7 years in EPS is totally wrong and unsustainable. The complainant is entitled only to original monthly pension of Rs.325/- subject to deduction of Rs.108/- towards commutation surrender ie. Surrender of 33.33% of pension which enabled the complainant to get a lump sum of Rs.10,800/- as commutation in terms of para 12 A of the EPS 1995. The complainant also opted for return of capital in accordance with para 13 [1] of the EPS 1995 which enables his nominee son Sri., Thankarajan to get Rs.21,700/- in the event of death of the pensioner. After deducting all the above entitlements the monthly pension payable is fixed up as Rs.184/- with effect from 1.7.2002 The complainant is not eligible for pension at the rate of Rs.800/- per month Hence the 1st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant is eligible to get more pension under the EPS 1995. 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext P1 is marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D5 are marked. Points 1 to 3 Here there is no dispute regarding date of birth. Complainant acquired 58 years of age on 1.7.2002 and on that date he was superannuated. Dispute is with regard to non-contributory period. As per the complainant there is no break in service but according to opp.party there was a break in service or non-contributory period of 17 years 7 months and 14 days in past service and 1 year 3 months and 15 days in actual service. For proving the non-contributory period , opp.party produced Ext. D1 the break in service certificate issued by the Factory Manager[ Opp.party 2] . without regularization of the break fully or partially the complainant is not entitled for pension as the totalcontributory service is less than 10 years. For rebutting this opp.party’s version and Ext. D1 the complainant did not try to examine the 2nd opp.party as this witness. So from the evidence we are constrained to believe the contention of opp.party1. Thus the past contributory service is 7 years 1 month 19 days rended of to 7 years. As per Ext. D3 the amount available to regularize ffor the non-contributory period for years from 92.93 to 16.11.1995amounts to Rs.7242/- From Ext. D1 the non-contributory service in actual service is 1 year 3 month 15 days rounded of 1 year. As per para 10 the complainant’s pensionable service is 12 years. Hence from the calculation the complainant is entitled to get the monthly pension of Rs.325/- . After deducting the commutation surrender Rs.108/- ie surrender of 33.33% pension and return of capital in accordance with para 13 [1] of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the pension payable is Rs.184/- with effect from 1.7.2002. In the view of the facts stated above there is no deficiency in service from the side of 1st opp.party and the complainant is not entitled to get more pension than Rs.184/- In the result the complaint is dismissed without cost. Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009. . I N D E X List of witness for the complainant PW.1. – Thankappan List of documents for the complainant P1. – PF contribution receipt 2001-2002. List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – K.P. Balagopalan List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Break in service certificate D2. – Letter dated 3.1.2003 D3. – Work sheet D4. – Letter sent by 1st opp.party to the complainant D5. – Pension Payment order | 
