Karnataka

StateCommission

A/880/2017

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.Mohammed - Opp.Party(s)

P.I Bhat

15 Mar 2024

ORDER

                                                                     Date of Filing :17.04.2017

  Date of Disposal : 15.03.2024

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED :15.03.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No. 880/2017

 

 

The Asst Provident Fund Commissioner

Office of the Employees Provident

Fund Organisation

Sub-Regional Office

Bhavishyaidhi Bhavan

P B No 572, Silva Road

Highlands, Mangaluru - 575 002                                      Appellant

(By Mrs M R Shalamala, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

Mr H Mohammed

Aged 66 years

S/o Late Hasanabha

R/at Kadabettu House and Village

Vogga Post

Bantwal Taluk

D.K. District - 574 265

(By Mr Nagaraj Ijari, Advocate)                                         Respondent  

                                                

   : ORDER :

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, aggrieved by the Order dated 20.03.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.18/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels on Record.  Perused the Impugned Order and the Grounds of Appeal.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint with cost.  OP  is directed to pay Pension to the Complainant by determining the Pension due to the Complainant by reckoning the years  of service, as 10 years as mentioned in Para 9 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. 

OP is further directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a to the Complainant as contemplated under Para 17-A of Employee’s Pension Scheme 1995.

OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as Compensation to the Complainant and Advocate fee fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

The above amount shall be paid within 30 days from the Date of receipt of copy of the Order.

4.       Being aggrieved by the Order, OP is in Appeal, inter-alia contending amongst other grounds that, the District Forum has failed to see that the Respondent ceased to be a member of the scheme on 01.06.2004.  Paragraph 14 (1) of the Scheme clearly states as to how the benefits would be given to the persons leaving the service before he being eligible for Monthly Members Pension.  It is clear that, the Scheme Certificate on which the Complainant is placing reliance was issued due to inadvertence i.e., after he attained the age of superannuation even though he ceased to be a Member of the Scheme on 01.06.2004, the Scheme Certificate was issued in contravention to Para 14(1) of the EPS. The Complainant was not at all eligible to receive the said Scheme Certificate, as he crossed the age of 58 years on 01.10.2008. The Complainant was however eligible to receive withdrawal of benefit, as provided in the Pension Scheme.  But, he is not eligible for Pension, as claimed by him.  Further, the District Forum failed to consider the Notification No.GSR 594(E) dated 21.08.2009 of Government of India, substituting Paragraph 9(b) of the EPS 1995 and the Complainant’s past service was 1 year 3 months and 14 days, which can be rounded off to one year, Actual Service was 8 years 6 months 16 days,  as on 01.06.2004 and the District Forum erroneously held that the Complainant is entitled for Pensionary benefits. Thus, the Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

5.       The Complainant in the complaint averred that, he retired from the service on 01.10.2008 due to ill health and has completed 10 years of service and thus he is entitled for Pension and accordingly, submitted a Claim for granting of Pension under EPS 1995, but the same was rejected by the EPFO, as he had not completed 10 years of service.

6.       The stand taken by the OP in the version that, service rendered by the Complainant being less than 10 years.  The Scheme Certificate was issued on 24.09.2009, after the Complainant attained the age of 58 years. Under Para 14 (1) of the EPS Scheme,  if the Member has not rendered eligible service for Pension, as mentioned in Para 9 of the Scheme, on the date on or before attaining the age of 58 years, the Member would be entitled as per Table (b) of the Scheme, may be issued a Scheme Certificate. Complainant had put in service of 1 year 3 months & 14 days and eligible service of 8 years 6 months and 15 days and thus the total service to be accounted would be 9 years, 9 months and 29 days only, which is less than 10 years. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for the benefits as claimed by him.

7.       Admittedly, the Complainant was a Beedi Roller in Southern India Beedi Works Pvt. Ltd.,; Member of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 ; his Date of Birth is 01.10.1950 and retired from the service on 01.10.2008 by rendering past service of 1 year 3 months & 14 days and eligible service of 8 years 6 months and 15 days.  The dispute is only with regard to granting of the entitled Monthly Pension to the Complainant.

8.       Let us examine whether the Complainant is entitled for Monthly Pension and whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP in not honouring the Claim, as made by the Complainant.

9.       Not withstanding anything as mentioned in Para 9 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, deals with eligible service for entitlement of benefits, which reads as below :

“9.   Determination of eligible service.

 (a) In the case of "new entrant" the "actual service" shall be treated as eligible service. The total contributory service shall be rounded off to the nearest year. The fraction of service for six months or more shall be treated as one year and the service less than six months shall be ignored.

Explanation. - In the case of employees employed seasonally any establishment the period of "contributory service'' in any year, notwithstanding that such service is less than a year shall be treated as a full year.

(b) In the case of the "existing member" the aggregate of contributory service and the 'past service' shall be treated as eligible service. Provided that if there is any period in the "past service" for which the contributions towards the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 has not been received, the said period shall count as eligible service only if the contribut1ons thereof have been received in the Employees' Pension Fund.

Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-paragraph, the aggregate of contributory service and past service for less than six months shall be ignored and six months and above shall be rounded to a year.

          No doubt, the Complainant’s past service is 1 year 3 months & 14 days and eligible service 8 years 6 months and 15 days. The Complainant has fulfilled the condition of Para 9 of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 by rendering past service of 1 year 3 months & 14 days  which is rounded off to 1 year and actual service 8 years 6 months and 15 days which is rounded off to 9 years, thus, in total he has completed 10 years of total service and there is no NCP as per records, hence, he is eligible & entitled for grant of Monthly Pension. The contention of the OP, that the Complainant not rendered total service of 10 years cannot be accepted and it cannot be said that he has not completed 10 years of pensionable service. Further, the complainant had retired on 01.10.2008, on attaining the age of Superannuation i.e., earlier to 24.07.2009, he is entitled for weightage of two years, as he has complied with either of the condition as Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 and his entitled Monthly Pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12, as it stood after 15.06.2007. Further Circular dated 05.11.2009 and 19.02.2009 placed by the counsel for Appellant along with Memo has no relevancy to dilute Para 9(a) and (b) of which determines of eligible service.  The act of OP in not considering the claim of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order is just and proper.  However awarding of interest at the rate of 12% pa is slightly on higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice.  In the result, we pass the following

ORDER

          Appeal is allowed in part.  Consequently, Order dated 20.03.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.18/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangalore is hereby set aside and OP is directed pay Pension to the Complainant by determining the Pension due to the Complainant by reckoning the years of service, as 10 years as mentioned in Para 9 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 with interest @ 8.25% p.a to the Complainant as contemplated under Para 17-A of Employee’s Pension Scheme 1995 and pay Rs.10,000/- as Compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of the order.

 

The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for the needful.

 

 

Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission, as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

Lady Member                         Judicial Member                    President

*s