KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.961/2015

JUDGEMENT DATED: 26.03.2024

(Against the Order in C.C.No.85/2014 of CDRF, Kollam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. K.V. Karma Chandran)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

(by Adv. Murali Madanthacodu)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This is an appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.85/2014 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (the District Forum for short).  

2.       As per the order dated 21.10.2015, the District Forum had allowed the complaint in part and directed the appellant to calculate the past service as well as the pensionary service of the complainant as per the Employees Pension Scheme and relevant rules and to disburse the pension with full arrears.

3.       The complaint was filed before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service.  The complainant was working as a kernel weigher in Paruthumpara Cashew Development Corporation.  She had retired from Employees Pension Scheme 1995 (EPS 95) on 30.12.2011.  The complainant, when applied for monthly pension, the 1^st opposite party had sanctioned a monthly pension of Rs.920/-(Rupees Nine Hundred and Twenty only).  The complainant who worked continuously on all working days had thirty seven years of eligible service.  Her wages on the date of exit was Rs.5,808/-(Rupees Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Eight only).  The pensionable salary as per pension payment order was Rs.5,608/-(Rupees Five Thousand Six Hundred and Eight only).  Her pensionable service was sixteen years.   But the 1^st opposite party had calculated her pensionary service as seven years three months and twelve days i.e. from 16.11.1995 to 30.12.2011 against the actual sixteen years one month and fifteen days which could be rounded to sixteen years and her actual service pension as per 12(2) of EPS 95 was to be arrived at Rs.1,282/-(Rupees One Thousand Two Hundred and Eighty Two only).  Since the complainant was an existing member, her past service pension as per 12(3) of EPS 95 was Rs.150/-(Rupees One Hundred and Fifty only) x Rs.3.560/- which was Rs.534/-(Rupees Five Hundred and Thirty Four only) and hence her total monthly pension would be Rs.1,816/-(Rupees One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixteen only).  But the opposite party had adopted an improper procedure by reducing the pension as Rs.920/-(Rupees Nine Hundred and Twenty only).  This act amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint.

4.       Both the opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate versions.

5.       The version filed by the 1^st opposite party is that:

As per the records maintained in their office the complainant had joined the EPF Scheme on 01.04.1975 and her date of birth is 31.12.1953.  She ceased to be a member of EPF 95 on attaining the age of fifty eight years on 30.12.2021. On receipt of the application form in 10D she was sanctioned monthly member pension @Rs.920/-(Rupees Nine Hundred and Twenty only) w.e.f. 31.12.2011.  The contention in the complaint that the complainant is eligible to get pension @Rs.1,816/-(Rupees One Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixteen only) is not in consonance with the provisions contained in the EPF Scheme 1995.  The complainant had no case regarding the contribution remitted by the employer during her service.  Her claim is against the statutory authorities.  1^st opposite party would therefore seek for the dismissal of the complaint.

6.       The 2^nd opposite party is the employer who had also filed version stating the following contentions:

The complainant was a member of the EPF whose account number was KR/2798/3076.  She was superannuated on 30.12.2011 and the 2^nd opposite party had forwarded all the relevant documents for expediting the monthly pension and there was no delay or material suppression on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party would also seek for the dismissal of the complaint.

7.       The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and Exhibits P1 and P2 on the side of the complainant and DW1 and D1 on the side of the opposite parties.

8.       In the appeal memorandum the following contentions are seen raised:

The order of the District Forum is wrong, contrary to law, facts and the principles of natural justice.  The District Forum had failed to appreciate the contentions raised by the appellant.  The District Forum ought to have found that the pensionary service of the member could be reckoned with reference to the contributions received or receivable on behalf of the Employees Pension Fund.  The District Forum ought to have found that the details of break in service as shown in Exhibit D1 was relevant for calculating pension. 

9.       Notice was served to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents.  The complainant/1^st respondent alone entered appearance.  The 2^nd respondent remained exparte. 

10.     Records from the District Forum were called for.  Heard the counsel for both sides.  Perused the records from the District Forum. 

11.     The core issue to be answered in this appeal is as to whether there was any break in service of the complainant.  Exhibit D1 is a document marked on the side of the appellant.  In Exhibit D1 break in service is shown as zero.  So it is evident that the intention of the appellant is to reckon the service of the complainant in terms of days.  But none of the rules of the Employees Provident Pension Scheme contemplates calculation of the service on the basis of days.  the complainant was working in a Cashew Factory and work in a cashew factory is seasonal.  Therefore, the employee can work only when the factory is in operation.  The calculation of pension could be done only in terms of years and not on the basis of days.  Exhibit D1 shows that contributions were received for thirty one years of the service of the complainant.  If there was an omission on the part of the employer to remit the contribution it was up to the appellant to realise the same by resorting to coercive methods.  Without resorting to such a method, the employee cannot be blamed. 

12.     This issue was already answered by this State Commission in appeal A 740/2015.  The very same issue was considered by the State Commission in appeal A 462/2013.  The finding of the State Commission has attained finality in view of the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as per the order in RP No.2071/2015.  So the contention raised by the appellant is unsustainable.  No rules would authorise the appellant to construe the days worked and to convert the same by way of years when the pensionary service is reckoned.  Such a conversion is an unauthorised one.  The calculation of pension is to be made by construing the years as unit of service.  The appellant has adopted an unauthorised method in converting years as days and to calculate the pensionable service on days basis.  The appellant is expected to sanction and disburse the pension strictly in accordance with the stipulations contained in the EPF Scheme.  Appellant has departed from the procedure contemplated under the EPF Scheme and hence we find that the appeal lacks merits.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  Parties shall bear their respective costs.

SL