Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1718/2019

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner(Pension) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Channabasappa - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

15 Mar 2024

ORDER

    Date of Filing :19.12.2019

Date of Disposal :15.03.2024

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:15.03.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K BSANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.1718/2019

 

The Asst Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Regional Office:

New Block No.10

Behind Income Tax Office

Navanagar

Hubli – 580 025                                                                        Appellant

(ByMrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

Sri Channabasappa

S/o Sri Fakirappa

Aged 61 years

Since Deceased

Represented by his LRs

Smt Swathi

D/o Late Channabasappa

R/o Sidalinga Nagar

Hudco Colony

Behind Masjid, At PO Gadag-582 103                           Respondent

(By Ms Geeta Bai, Advocate)

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, aggrieved by the Order dated          17.10.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No.18/2019 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad(hereinafter referred to as the District Forum).

 

2.       Heard the arguments of learned Counsels on record.  Perused the Impugned Order, Grounds of Appeal and documents on record.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Compliant in part and directed the OP to revise the Monthly Pension of the Complainant at Rs.3,240/- p.m from 06.02.2016, as per Para 12(3)(a)& (b) R/w Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 and to pay the difference of the Pension amount with interest at 10% p.a, as and when the arrears has become due and go on paying the Pension at the revised rate. Further, OP to pay the cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant, within 60 days from the Date of the Order, failing which Complainant is at liberty to proceed against the OP,  as per Law.

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds, thattheDistrict Forum failed to note that payment of the pension of the Respondent has commenced from 06.02.2016 after amendment of Para 12, 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5).  Therefore, the minimum pension is only for aggregate of past service & pensionable service and not separately for past service and pensionable service.   Further contended that,the District Forum failed to note that the Respondent’sDate of leaving the services of his Employer is 31.05.2016 and the Pension has to be fixed as per Para 11(1), which was amended on 22.08.2014 and Para 12(2) of EPS 1995 was amended. Thus, the entire pensionable service is taken on pro-rata basis for service rendered from joining EPS 1995 up to 01.09.2014 on maximum ceiling on wage being Rs.6,500/- p.m and the service from 01.09.2014 upto date of exist, on maximum ceiling on wages being Rs.15,000/-p.m. Thus, the Impugned Order is erroneous and same needs to be set aside by allowing the Appeal.

5.       Per contra, the grievance of the Complainant is that he retired from the service on 05.02.2016, on attaining the age of 58 years, by rendering service of 7 years, 7 month, 1 day and actual service of 20 years, 2 months, 21 days, totalling 28 years and thus he is entitled for Monthly Pension at Rs.3,240/- from 06.02.2016, as per Para 12(3)(b) read with Para 12 of EPS 1995. 

OP/Appellant herein, has taken a stand that the entitled Monthly Pension is calculated as per formula provided under Para 12(2) of EPS and there is no mistake or negligence on his part in determining the monthly pension on a pro-rata basis, as provided under Para 12(2) and 12(3) of EPS 1995.

06.     Thus, it is abundantly clear that the Complainant has complied with both the conditions as laid down in Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 of amendment of 24.07.2009 and he is entitled for two years of weightage and his Monthly Pension will have to be recalculated as per amendment to Para 12 as it stood after 15.06.2007.

07.     The only bone of contention between the parties is with regard to calculation of average pensionable salary after taking 60 months average on pro-rata basis and in this direction, we have no hesitation to confirm that the observation of the District Forum in Para 12 of its Order with regard to calculation of Monthly Pension, is as follows:

Monthly Member Pension = Pensionable Salary x Pensionable Service/70

                = 8908 x 20.22 years +2 years weightage/70

          =8908 x 22.22 years/70

          = Rs 2,827.65 rounded off to Rs.2,828/-

+ past service benefits as per Para 12(3) (b) :

805 x relevant factor as in Table ‘B’ 

          For the service of less than 21 years

          = 85 x 4.843 = 411.66 rounded off to = Rs.412.00

        Total pension payable = Rs.3,240.00

 

08.     Thus, the calculation of Monthly Pension of the Complainant as per Provisions laid down in Para 12 of EPS 1995 arrived at by the District Forum in the Impugned Order is just and proper and there are no strong reasons to interfere with the same.

09.     With the above observations, the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum is hereby confirmed in toto.   Accordingly, Appeal stands Dismissed.

10.     The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

 

 

11.     Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.        

 

 

 

Lady Member                Judicial Member               President

*s