KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.214/2011
JUDGMENT DATED:28.09.2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund
Organization,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Pattom P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram.
: APPELLANTS
2. The Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund
Organization,
Sub Regional Office, Chinnakkada,
Kollam.
(By Adv. K.V. Karma Chandran)
Vs
G. Sivaraman Nair,
Lekshmi Vilasom, Poonkulanji P.O., : RESPONDENT
Karavoor, Kollam.
(By Adv. B. Vijayakumar)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER
The opposite parties in CC.314/09 before the CDRF, Kollam are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the order
dated:30th November 2010 wherein and whereby the Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to sanction the pension to the complainant adopting combined rounding of past service and actual service.
2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that he has joined service on 24.6.1995 and started contributing to the Employees Pension Fund Scheme from 24.6.1995 and that he left the service on 23.6.2005. It is his case that though he has applied for pension as per the EPS 1995, the opposite parties rejected the claim stating that the complainant did not have 10 years qualifying service and disputing the said contention of the opposite parties the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to sanction the pension treating the service of the complainant as 10 years as he had 9 years and 10 months total service.
3. The opposite parties filed joint version contending that as per the scheme if an employee is to get pension, he must have at least 10 years service and that in the present case, the complainant had only 4 months and 21 days as past service and actual service 9 years 5 months and 8 days. It is also submitted that period less than 6 months has to be ignored and only if the service is more than 6 months it can be considered as one year and as the complainant did not have actual service for more than 6 months for the past service the same has to be ignored and in total the complainant had only 9 years service. Submitting that there was no deficiency of service in not granting pension to the complainant, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 on his side and the evidence of DW1.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the Forum below was, not right in directing the opposite parties to sanction pension to the complainant, considering the total period as 10 years. It is also argued by him that the Employees Pension Scheme came into force on 15.11.95 and the period prior to 15.11.1995 can be treated as only past service and in the case of the complainant since he had only 4 months it was ignored and only the actual service was taken into account while the claim was considered. The learned counsel submitted before us that as per paragraph 9 of the EP Scheme, the period less than 6 months is to be ignored and only if the service is more than 6 months it can be rounded to one year. Canvassing for the position that there was no deficiency of service the learned counsel for the appellant argued for setting aside the order of the Forum. He has submitted that aggregate of past service and actual service can not be considered in the instant case. It is also submitted by him that the notification issued by the Additional Central PF Commissioner came into force only on 21.8.2009 and hence the same is not applicable in the case of the complainant.
6. On a perusal of the records and also on hearing the learned counsel for the appellants we find that the complainant had joined on 24.6.1995 and has left the service on 23.6.2005. It is also seen that altogether the complainant had a service of 9 years and 10 months which is not disputed by the appellants/opposite parties. It is also found that the notification dated 21st August 2009 stipulates that the aggregate of actual service and past service can be considered for sanctioning pension and only if the total service is less than 6 months it can be ignored and as it is found that the complainant had a total service of 9 years and 10 months, the same can be treated as 10 years. It is also found that though the notification came only
on 21.8.2009 the complaint was pending before the Forum and hence the notification is applicable in the case of the complainant also. Hence it is our considered view that the complainant is entitled for pension as ordered by the Forum.
In the result the appeal is dismissed. The order of the Forum dated:30.11.2010 in CC.314/09 is confirmed.
Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum urgently.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT
VL.
