Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/220/2017

Nirmal Jit Singh Walia - Complainant(s)

Versus

Government of India through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	220 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	07.03.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	07.12.2017

 

 

 

 

Nirmal Jit Singh Walia s/o Sh.Swaran Singh Walia, R/o Amar Swaran Niwas, #511, Phase-1, SAS Nagar (Mohali) 160055       

             …..Complainant

Versus

Government of India through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, SCO 4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh

             ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

For complainant      : Complainant in person.

For OP(s)            : Sh.Gaurav Tangri, Advocate

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

          The facts in issue are that the complainant was working as Manager (Eng.), Nestle India Ltd., Samalkha Factory, Haryana and retired on 31.10.2005. It is averred that the complainant was member of Family Pension Scheme controlled by Opposite Party and contributed to the scheme from 1.7.1972 to 3.10.2003 i.e. upto the date of attaining the age of 58 years.  It is averred that after 3.10.2003, the complainant became eligible for family pension, but Opposite Party delayed the payment inordinately and granted the same on 6.1.2010 and that too was less than his entitlement.  It is also averred that the arrears from 2003 till fixation was paid on 4.3.2010 amounting to Rs.68,089/- whereas the entitlement of arrears, as per the actual pension to be fixed was Rs.1,31,144/-.  It is submitted that the said amount of Rs.1,31,144/- too was paid on different dates from 4.3.2010 to 3.8.2015, whereas the date of entitlement was 3.10.2003.  It is also submitted that the complainant vide letters dated 10.10.2016 and 3.1.2017 requested the Opposite Party to pay accrued interest on the delayed payments, but till date no interest has been paid.  Hence, this complaint for recovery of interest on delayed payment.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply stating that there is inordinate delay on the part of the complainant for which the Opposite Party cannot be held liable.  It is stated that the complainant had attained the age of 58 years on 2.10.2003 and he applied for his pension vide Form No.10-D, which was received by the office on 29.5.2008, hence the delay of 5 years was made by the complainant himself (Ann.R-1).  However, the claim was returned on 23.7.2008 with advice to the complainant to do the needful (Ann.R-2). It is also stated that claim, after completion in all respect, was submitted in office on 4.3.2009 and after due verification & clarification sought, the final pension amount along with arrear amount with effect from 3.10.2003 was disbursed to the complainant.  However, the complainant in Jan., 2012 came across his old record and all of a sudden realize that he started contributing towards the fund w.e.f April, 1973 in some other establishment instead of 08/97 and represented for recalculation of his past service and revision of pension vide letter dated 23.7.2013 (Ann.R-6). Thereafter, the service was added and arrears were paid to the complainant on 4.4.2015 and 6.4.2015.  It is submitted that again all of a sudden, the complainant realized that he was member of fund with effect from 1.7.1972 in some other establishment and that his services is to be calculated w.e.f. 1.7.1972, he again made an application for revision of his pension on 29.11.2012 (Ann.R-8).  It is also submitted that again after verification, the benefit of service w.e.f. 1.7.1972 was given to the complainant and arrears were paid.  It is stated that as and when the complainant got reminded of his previous services on piece meal basis, his total service was re-calculated and arrears were paid accordingly within time.  It is also stated that the Opposite Party could not make such payments without knowing the fact that in which establishment the member had worked in his life time and as and when, the same was brought to the notice of the department by the complainant, the payment of arrears were made to him in time,  after verification.  It is further stated that there is no question of payment of interest on arrears of payment, as the delay was on the part of the complainant.  Rest of the allegations have been denied and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant has also filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OP and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The complainant Nirmal Jit Singh Walia worked in M.N.Dastur & Company Pvt. Limited, Kolkata w.e.f. 1.8.1974 to 27.7.1987 and therein he was member of Pension Fund having Account No.WB/11138/P-226. Before that, the complainant worked with M/s Hind Motors w.e.f. 1.7.1972 to 26.7.1974.  The complainant later worked in Nestle India Limited, Samalkha Factory, Haryana and retired therefrom on 31.10.2005.

 

7]       The complainant had contributed his provident fund with his abovenamed employers wherein he serves throughout.  He has not deposited any amount on account of provident fund etc. directly with Provident Fund Organization. 

 

8]       The family pension, as permissible to the complainant, has been granted, but the only grouse raised in the present complaint is regarding payment of interest due to alleged delay in sanction/payment of family pension.

 

9]       The Opposite Party stated that little delay in sanction and disbursement of family pension is only because the complainant failed to submit his case in proper form.  He filled Form 13 for transfer of his PF/Pension accumulation on piece meal basis till end of 2012.  It is stated by Opposite Party that the complainant completed 58 years on 2.10.2003, but applied for pension vide Form No.10-D on 29.5.2008 i.e. after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 5 years.  The application of the complainant received on 29.5.2008 was, however, considered on its merits by Opposite Party, but found several discrepancies therein, hence referred back to the complainant to rectify the discrepancies.  The complainant was later advised vide letter dated 3.7.2008 to submit Form 13 for effective transition of account.  However, in turn the complainant submitted his papers with Provident Fund Organization on 4.3.2009.  On receipt of papers, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi processed the claim and finally forwarded the pension papers to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh vide letter dated 10.8.2009.  Since there was no proper details about the complete past service profile of the complainant in the proposal, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh vide its letter dated 14.9.2009 sought clarification on that.  It is stated that only after getting complete details of the past service of the complainant  and the contribution of P.F. etc., the pension was sanctioned vide PPO No.PN/CHD/17348 and the pension was disbursed from 3.10.2003 without any intentional delay.

 

10]      The Opposite Party has further stated that the complainant after sanction of pension, later in Jan., 2012 again represented vide letter dated 23.7.2013 for recalculation of his service, intimating fresh facts about his contribution to P.F. with his employers.  On receipt of representation from the complainant, the anecdotes of facts, as alleged in the representation were again thoroughly re-verified from different offices and accordingly, the arrears were paid to the complainant on 4.4.2015 and 6.4.2015.  The complainant again moved an application for re-fixation of his pension on 29.11.2012 and revision of his pension considering his past qualifying service w.e.f. 1.7.1972 with some other establishment and as such after re-verification of the same, the arrears were found due to him, was also paid to the complainant.

 

11]      After careful examination of facts and evidence available on record, it is found that there was no intentional or willful delay on the part of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh in settlement of family pension to the complainant.  The issues regarding sanction of pension, definitely have financial implications in itself and requires meticulous check-back/verification of record concerned especially when various organizations are involved therein.  The facts & circumstances under consideration do not warrant payment of any penal interest on the payments already made to the complainant. 

         The Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh has sanctioned the family pension and paid the arrears to the complainant, as permissible to him under the rules and regulations applicable thereto without any bias and favour. 

 

12]      The complainant has filed the complaint against Government of India.  The Provident Fund Organisation is governed by a Board of Trustees constituted under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.  The present complaint against Govt. of India is untenable.

 

13]      Keeping in view the above facts, under consideration, the complaint being without merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

7^th December, 2017                                                      

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER