BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Kesar Singh S/o Sh.Jot Singh, R/o House No.132, Phase-I, Ravindra Enclave, Baltana, Zirakpur.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

1]      Food Corporation of India, through its Chairman, 16-20 Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi

2]      Food Corporation of India, through its Senior Regional Manager Punjab, Sector 31, Chandigarh.

3]      Food Corporation of India, through its Assistant General Manager, CPF Pensions, FCI, Div.A-2A,A-2B, Sector 24, Noida (U.P.)

4]      Food Corporation of India, through its Area Manager, FCI, Sirhind Road, Patiala, Punjab.

                                                ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:     SH.P.D.GOEL                                             PRESIDENT

                   SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                        MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA      MEMBER

Argued by:    Sh.Rahul Sharma, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Santokh Singh, Counsel for OPs

PER P.D.GOEL,PRESIDENT

1.                 As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant, after putting in 41 years of Service with OPs, retired on 28.2.2009 (Ann.C-1).  After retirement, the complainant vide letter dated 11.8.2009 (Ann.C-2) requested the OPs to release the pension as per the Family Pension Scheme, 1995.  The complainant also submitted Form 10-D (EPS) along with required documents on 19.3.2009 but the same were returned vide letter No.A/1 (Kesar Singh) on 9.10.2009, received by the complainant on 29.10.2009. A reminder was sent vide letter dated 28.10.2010 (Ann.C-3) to Asstt. General Manager, FCI Pensions, Noida with regard to the letter of District Office Patiala at Sr.No.A/1(3686)/2009-10, dated 27.8.2010 with the request to release family pension but despite that the OP failed to release the pension. On 30.11.2009, the complainant resubmitted the papers to Area Manager, FCI, District Office Patiala, for onward transmission to Asstt. General Manager Office, Noida for further necessary action, which were duly accepted by the Area Manager, District Office, Patiala after thorough investigation about the eligibility of the complainant under the Family Pension Scheme, 1995.  The Area Manager, FCI, District Office, Patiala vide its letter dated 27.8.2010 (Ann.C-4) submitted the document of complainant to Asstt. General Manager of Head Office Noida.  A legal notice dated 12.7.2011 (Ann.C-5) was sent to OPs, which was duly replied vide Ann.C-6.  It is averred that the complainant was never informed or intimated about the option regarding the enrolment under the Family Pension Scheme by OPs for the employees who joined prior to 01.04.1971.  It is further averred that the complainant is being harassed by OPs by not releasing him family pension.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                OPs filed joint reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case regarding complainant’s having retired from their department.  It is stated that when the family pension scheme, 1995 was to be made applicable, the same was circulated for information of each and every employees of OPs and options were invited for the same.  The complainant did not opt the said pension scheme within the prescribed time and accordingly no deductions from his salary were made for contribution towards family pension. Thus, the family pension scheme, 1995 was not applicable to the complainant, hence he is not entitled for any pension.  Denying rest of the allegations of the complainant and pleading no deficiency in service, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5.                The learned Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant retired on 28.2.2009, after putting in 41 years of service with the OPs.  He after retirement vide letter dated 11.8.2009 requested the OPs to release the pension as per the Family Pension Scheme, 1995.  The complainant also submitted Form 10-D (EPS) along with required documents but the same were returned on 9.10.2009. The complainant resubmitted the papers to Area Manager, FCI, District Office Patiala on 30.11.2009 for onward transmission to Assistant General Manager Office, Noida, which were duly accepted after thorough investigation about the eligibility of the complainant under the Family Pension Scheme, 1995.  It was lastly argued that the OPs have failed to release the family pension to the complainant.

6.                The learned Counsel for the OPs vehemently argued that the complainant did not opt the Family Pension Scheme, 1995 and no deductions from his salary were made for contribution towards family pension. It was lastly argued that the Family Pension Scheme, 1995 was not applicable to the complainant, so he is not entitled for any pension under the said scheme.

7.                The other facts are admitted. The only point for consideration before this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled for pension as per the Family Pension Scheme, 1995. The answer to this is in the negative.

8.                The case of the complainant is that vide letter dated 11.8.2009 – Annexure C-2, he made a request to the OPs to release the pension as per the Family Pension Scheme, 1995. On the other hand, the OPs have raised the defence that the complainant did not opt the said pension scheme, so no deductions from his salary were made for contribution towards family pension, as such, the Family Pension Scheme, 1995 was not applicable to him. Thus, the complainant is not entitled for any pension.

9.                To support the contention that the complainant ever opted for the Family Pension Scheme, 1995, the complainant has not produced any evidence. The self serving affidavit of the complainant is not sufficient to prove the said assertion. The OPs have specifically raised the defence that the Family Pension Scheme, 1995 was circulated for information of each and every employee of the OPs and option was invited for the same but the complainant did not opt the said pension scheme and no deductions from his salary were made for contribution towards family pension. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that any deduction was made by the OPs from his salary for contribution towards family pension. He has also not produced any evidence that he ever opted for the Family Pension Scheme, 1995. In view of this, it is held that the Family Pension Scheme, 1995 was not applicable to the complainant, so he is not entitled for any pension under the said pension scheme. 

10.              As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. With the result, the complaint is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

11.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.