Kerala

StateCommission

719/2003

Provident fund Asst Commissioner,Employee Provident Fund - Complainant(s)

Versus

Franklin manul - Opp.Party(s)

Thomas Mathew

28 May 2011

ORDER

First Appeal No. 719/2003

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District )

1. Provident fund Asst Commissioner,Employee Provident Fund

Sub Regional Office,Fort road,Kannur

BEFORE:
	SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA PRESIDING MEMBER

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 719/03

JUDGMENT DATED 28.05.2011

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

APPELLANT

Provident Fund Assistant Commissioner,

Employees” Provident Fund,

Sub - Regional Office,

Fort Building, V.K. Complex,

Fort Road, Kannur.

(Rep. by Adv. Thomas Mathew, Nellimoottil)

RESPONDENTS

Franklin Manuel,

Kondoth House, Opp. Govt. WDP School,

Papinisseri P.O. Kannur – 670 561

( Rep. by Adv. V. Ramkumar Nambiar)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER

This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Kannur in O.P. No. 86/2002 dated 30/6/2003. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in the above o.p. respectively. The appellant prefers this appeal under the direction of the Forum below that directed the opposite party /appellant to reconsider the matter and giving eligible pension on the basis of the table placed by the complainant and give balance arrears and increased pension of the complainant including the service from the date of entry and the date of retirement and allowing to withdraw the pension amount along with the arrears within one month from the date of the order.

The brief of the complaint is that the complainant is a retired employee from Messrs. Baliapattam Tiles works, Pappinisserry having Provident Fund A/c. No. KR/224/497. He was a member of the Employees Provident Fund and Employees Family pension schemes from 1.12.1973 from the date of the joining of the service. He was retired from the service on 7.11.1994 on attaining age of 58 years. He was sanctioned pension on the basis of the order in O.P. No. 492/98 passed by the CDRF, Kannur. When he received the pension, it was understood by him that there is some mistake crept in the pension payment order he was included in the category of short service pension. According to the complainant/respondent, he has to get Rs. 1114/- as monthly pension. But he has getting an amount of Rs. 417/- for rectifying the mistake crept in the pension payment order and also for getting the pension amount claimed by him, the complainant has filed the O.P before the lower Forum.

The appellant/opposite party entered appearance and filed version and marked Exts. R1 and R1(a) and examined witness Dw1. The Contention of the appellant is that the complainant is eligible to get an amount of Rs. 417/- as monthly pension and not Rs. 1114/- as claimed by him. The pension period of service of the complainant was 19 years, 10 months and 10 days which is around to 20years only and not 21 years as claimed by the complainant. The complainant is also not entitled to claim the weightage of 2 years added to his period of service. Moreover the complainant is not entitled to claim the monthly pension as stated in Para 12(2) of the employees pension scheme , 1995 as the complainant has no pensionable service on 16.11.95. Hence the opposite party, appellant prayed for the dismissal of the O.P. There is no Exts produced and marked by the complainant. In short, either documentary evidence or oral evidence is absent from the side of the complainant. The Forum below heard parties and perused the available evidence and taken a view that the complainant retired from the service on 7.11.94 and entered in to service on 1.12.73. The contention of the complainant is that completing of 20 years of service by the complainant counting from 16.11.1995 only getting weightage. The Forum taken a strong view that counting period for pension Scheme definitely he would get 2 years weightage . Hence the opposite parties liable to reconsider the matter on the basis of the complainant’s statements and issue correct pension order counting the service from the starting point till he retires.

On this day, this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing. The Counsel for the appellant is present and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant. The Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the ground of appeal memorandum that the order passed by the Forum below is illegal and not accordance with the provisions of law and evidence. The main contention taken by the appellant in this appeal that the pension period of service was 19 years 10 months and 10 days which is around 20 years only and not 21 years as claimed by the complainant. The complainant is also not entitled to claim the weightage of 2 years aided to its period of service. Moreover the complainant is not entitled to claim the monthly pension as stated in Para 12(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 as complainant has not pensionable service on 16.11.1995. Hence the counsel for the appellant submitted that to allow the appeal and to setaside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.

We heard in detail. The Forum give direction to reconsider the matter and give eligible pension on the basis of the table placed above by the complainant and give the balance adduced and increase the pension to the complainant calculating the service from the date of entry and date of retirement and allow him to withdraw the pension amount along with arrears within one month from the date of the order. There was no compensation and cost ordered. Nowhere in the appeal has memorandum showed that the opposite party prepared revised pension order as per the order passed by the Forum below.

Here the question is that whether the complainant is entitled to get the pension of 20 years of service or less. We think it is fit case to remit back this matter for reconsideration.

We are seeing there is no evidence adduced by the complainant to support his claim.

In the result, this appeal is allowed and setaside the order passed by the Forum below. This case remanded back to the Forum below for fresh disposal. It is direct to consider the contention of the appellant the Para 12(2) of the Employee’s pension scheme, 1995 as the complainant has not pensionable service on 16.11.95. The Forum below is also direct to give proper opportunities to both sides for adducing evidence. No cost ordered. Thus the appeal disposed accordingly.