SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Non-payment of family pension by the Ops after the retirement are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that, Complainant was working as a Regular Mazdoor under Op-BSNL for more than 20yrs, and his service was regularized vide Office letter No. E6(13) dtd. Part/II 12.10.2004. Complainant after completing more than 11yrs regular service took retirement on dt.31.10.2016 and during his regular service period certain amounts were deducted towards Provident Fund contribution for availing pension, which was credited to Op No.5 through OpNo.2. But the Ops after retirement of the complainant are not releasing the pension for which complainant and his family member are living in hardship. In the circumstances it is prayed before this Forum by way of filing this complaint seeking a direction to Ops to release pension under EPF scheme starting from Feb-2016 along with arrear dues and interest. It is further prayed that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- be award in favour of the complainant as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.
3. OpNo.1 to 4, BSNL authorities appeared through their Ld. Counsel and filed joint written version into the dispute. The written version reveals that, Complainant initially working as a casual labour and his service was regularized on 12.10.2004 as Regular Mazdoor and Complainant retire from his service on 31.01.2016 after continuing his service as regular Mazdoor for a period of 11yrs 3 months and 19days. It is averred that Complainant has joined EPF-Scheme on 01.11.2004 and his contribution was deposited with the office of Provident Fund Commissioner from Nov-2014. It is further averred that, though 11yrs as pensionable service, but the Provident Fund Authorities reject the claim on the ground that, Complainant has not rendered minimum 10yrs of pensionable service.In the situation Op No.1 to 4 submits that, on non-payment of family pension OpNo.1 to 4 has no role to play and no deficiency in service has been committed by there Ops, accordingly the complainant may be dismissed against this Ops.
Op No.5, Employees Provident Fund Organization appeared through their authorized officer and filed written statement into the case, where in it is averred that, Complainant’s contribution towards the Provident Fund, under Employees Pension scheme-1995 was received from the M/S BSNL authorities starting from 01.11.2004 to 07.01.2014, though the complainant-employee superannuated on 31.01.2016 after attaining the age of 60 yrs. It is also averred that, during period of receipt of Provident Fund contribution complainant-employee was serving in two places under Op-BSNL authorities i.e, at Cuttack & Bhubaneswar and his A/C No. was OR/6425/40 and OR/6790/2015respectively, and the provident fund contribution was received upto 07.01.2014, as the complainant-employee attended the age of 58yrs on 07.01.2014. So the total pensionable service is 9 yrs 02 months 03 days only. It is also averred that, U/S 6 A of EPS-1995 a member of the Employees Provident Fund shall continue to be such member, till he attains the age of 58 yrs. As under the EPS-1995 complainant has not completed a pensionable service period for 10 yrs, the complainant-employee is not considered for sanction of family pension.
4. Heard the authorized representative of complainant and authorized officer of Op No.5, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar also heard Ld. Counsel Mr. Md. Nayeem appearing for OpNo.1 to 4 BSNL Authorities and perused the documents filed by complainant. The admitted facts of the case are that complainant was serving under BSNL authorities as a Regular Mazdoor starting from Nov-2004 and complainant was a member of Provident Fund Contribution starting from Nov-2004. It is also admitted that, the complainant-employee superannuated from his job on 31.01.2016 after attaining the age of 60yrs.
In the complaint, it is alleged that though Complainant was serving under BSNL authorities for more that 11 yrs, but the Op- Provident Fund Commissioner is not releasing the pension in his favour. Defending the allegations Op-employer, BSNL authorities pleas are that, Complainant-employee has rendered 11 yrs 3months 19 days as qualifying service and his contribution toward EPF started from Nov-2004 to Jan-2016. On the other hand, the contesting OpNo.5 Provident Pension Commission, takes the defence plea that, Under Employees Pension scheme-1995, an employee is eligible to get the Family Pension, if the employee attains 58 yrs of age and completes minimum period of 10yrs of service being a member of the Provident Fund & family pension scheme, but in the instant case the complainant-employee’s total pensionable service is for 09 yrs 02 months 03 days upto the age of 58 yrs.
Under section 6-A of the Employees Pension scheme-1995 provides that “A member of the Employees Pension Fund shall continue to be such member till he attains the age of 58 yrs or he avails the withdrawal benefit to which he is entitled under-14 of the scheme, or dies, or the pension is vested on him in terms of Para-12 of the scheme, whichever is earlier”. As per the written statement of OpNo.5 the Provident Fund Commissioner the recorded date of birth of complainant-employee is 08.01.1956 and he attains the age of 58 yrs on the date of 07.01.2014. Complainant–employee is a member of the Employees Provident Fund starting from 01.11.2004, hence the total period of complainant pensionable service till 07.01.2014 is for 09 yrs 02 months 03 days & which does not complete a mandatory pensionable service period of 10 yrs to be fitted with EPS-1995. The fact also reveals from the submission of the complainant and employer BSNL that, Complaint has completed a total service period of 11 yrs 03 months and 19 days and complainant is superannuated after attaining the age of 60 yrs and took retirement on 31.01.2016.Though in the complaint it is mentioned that, the retirement date of complainant is 31.10.2016, but from the averments of the parties it is clear that the date of retirement is 31.01.2016 and it is a fact which is countered by the complainant any way. Hence, as per the EPS-1995 complainant, when attains the age of 58 yrs, his pensionable service does not complete 10 yrs of continuous service as stated by the Op- Provident Fund Commissioner and not countered by the complainant, Accordingly, on our considered opinion the Op-Provident Fund Commissioner has not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant so also the employer BSNL authorities.
Accordingly, the complainant is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 7th day of January,2019.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
