Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/536/2022

M.M Goswami - Complainant(s)

Versus

Employees Provident Fund Organisation - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Parveen Gupta

12 Apr 2024

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	536 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	04.07.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	12.04.2024

 

 

 

 

 

M.M.Goswami s/o L.Sh.Madan Mohan Goswami, R/o H.No.70, First Floor, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

Employees Provident Fund Organisation (through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner), Regional Office: SCO No.4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160017

     ….. Opposite Party

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by:-     Sh.Parveen Gupta, Counsel for the complainant

Sh.Gaurav Tangri, Counsel for OPs

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he retired from Haryana Tourism Cooperative Limited (HTC), prior to 01.09.2014, on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2009. The complainant was subscriber/member of Provident Fund Scheme and Employees Pension Scheme holding PF Account NO.Pb/CHD/0006191/000/000103 and issued Revised PPO No.PB/CHD/00042198.  It is stated that the complainant was being eligible for revision of Pension was intimated by RPFC, Chandigarh vide letter dated 10.10.2018 for deposit of differential amount of Rs.7,19,549/- as on 30.04.2019 for getting the benefit of actual salary in the Pension Fund exceeding wage limit of either Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6500/- per month as per the Supreme Court's orders dated 04.10.2016 in SLP/33032-33033/2015, R.C.Gupta & Other Vs. RPFC & Other.  Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs.7,19,549/- on 24.04.2019 for getting the benefit of revision of pension and then Revised PPO bearing No.PB/CHD/00042198, dated 25.05.2019/07.06.2019 was issued to the complainant showing the revised pension of Rs.7414 /- per month (Ann.C-2). 

         It is pleaded that after issue of revised PPO, the OP was required to pay the arrears of pension to the complainant from the date of retirement till the issue of revised PPO but the same has not been paid. The complainant also submitted representation to the OP vide letter dated 11.10.2019 followed by reminder dated 06.11.2019 with prayer that since the pension has been revised, the arrears of pension be released immediately (Ann.C-5 & C-6).  However, the OP failed to settle and did not release the arrears of revised pension to him till date. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OP as deficiency in service with a prayer to direct the OP to release the arrears of revised pension calculated from the date of retirement till the date of issue of revised PPO with penal interest as well as to pay compensation and litigation cost. 

 

2]       The Opposite Party has failed to file its written version within the stipulated time period and therefore, the defence of Opposite Party was struck off vide order dated 27.01.2023.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record including written submissions.

 

5]       The perusal of the documents and pleadings shows that the complainant has sought the relief for the release of arrears of revised pension from the OP from the date of retirement till the date of issue of revised PPO since he already deposited Rs.7,19,549/- with the OP on 24.4.2019 for getting the benefit of revision of pension.  However, the stand of the OP is that it is available only to the cases where the joint option was exercised by the employee and employer during the service period of the employee and contribution was paid on higher salary, which is not the case of the complainant.  It is also the stand of the OP that the complainant is not entitled to pension on higher wages and the complainant may apply for the refund of the amount deposited.   

 

6]       Moreover, the OP has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in Civil Appeals of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.8658-8659 of 2019 titled as The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. Etc., decided on 04.11.2022 and stated that the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit as per this judgment. 

 

7]       We find merit in the contention of the OP.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above cited case law i.e. Civil Appeals of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.8658-8659 of 2019 titled as The Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr. Etc. Vs. Sunil Kumar B. & Ors. Etc., decided on 04.11.2022 has categorically held in Para No.44(v) that :-

          “The employees who had retired prior to 1^st September 2014 without exercising any option under paragraph 11(3) of the pre­amendment scheme have already exited from the membership thereof. They would not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.”

          

8]       From above, it is observed that the complainant, who retired on 31.7.2009 i.e. much prior to 01.09.2014, the date fixed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, stands exited from the membership and hence he is not entitled to pension on higher wages in view of the said judgment (Ann.R-6). It is also observed that the deposit of any amount by the complainant with the OP for getting revised pension does not make him entitled to get the revised pension especially when he stands exited from the membership being retired on 31.7.2009 i.e. earlier to 01.09.2014. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  Though it is a fit case to be dismissed with cost yet taking a lenient view, the cost is not imposed upon the complainant.

 

9]       In view of the above discussion & findings, the complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

10]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.     

Announced

12.04.2024                                                                         

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER