By L. Jyothikumar, Member:

            Complaint is filed on 28-12-09.  Complainant was working as a teacher in Marzook Women’s College, Kozhikode and was a covered employee under the provisions of the E.P.F and M.P.Act 1952.  Contribution to E.P.Scheme pension fund etc. were timely remitted by the college authorities.  After leaving the college she has submitted form-19 and Form 10-D application as prescribed under the E.P.F. and M.P. Act 1952 for getting the pension as provided under the E.P.F. Pension scheme 1995,.  She was given pension with effect from 25-8-2009 onwards with an arrears of pension amounting to Rs.1092/-.  The Respondent  has arbitrarily taken a decision to grant her pension from 25-8-2009 instead of rejecting the claim.  She was not granted with a pension arrears for the period from 1-12-08 to 25-8-09.  The cut off date 25-8-09 for granting pension taken by the respondent was the date on which the respondent had received the application of the complainant in their office. But the complainant had requested to grant the pension from 1-12-08.  The respondent did not consider the request.  The complainant is alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

            Opposite party was represented and version filed by stating that there is no ground for the complainant for alleging deficiency of service and seek the jurisdiction of this Forum since the request for early pension has got legal force only on the date of receipt of the complainant's application.  Complainant is not entitled to any relief. O.P. submits to dismiss the petition.

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 to A3 marked on complainant’s side. Complainant was cross examined by the O.P.  No oral evidence adduced by the O.P.  Ext.B1 marked on the side of the O.P.

            Points for considerations are (1)  Whether there was any deficiency on the part of the O.P.? (2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

            The case of the complainant is that the cut off date 25-8-2009 for granting pension taken by the respondent was the date on which the respondent had received the application of the complainant in their office.  From the exhibits A3 the copy of the instructions issued by the respondent proved, the Manner in which the application is to be submitted.  Clause No.8 of Ext.A3, which is obligatory on the part of the respondent to reject the claim form of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had failed to put the date in the relevant column of the application.  Here the O.P. had arbitrarily taken decision to grant her pension from 25-8-09, instead of rejecting the application as per the instruction issued by the respondent themselves.  Hence the Forum is of the opinion that O.P. was deficient in their service. 

            Forum has already found that O.P. was deficient in their service.  Hence complainant is entitled to get the pension w.e.f. 1-12-2008 onwards with arrears of pension.

            In the result the petition is allowed and O.P. is directed to pay the pension amount from 1-12-2008 to 25-8-2009 and a compensation of Rs. 500/- and cost of Rs.250/- to the complainant. The O.P. is directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Pronounced in the open court this 30th day of June 2010.

            SD/-PRESIDENT                          SD/-MEMBER                              SD/-MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainants

A1. Photocopy of letter dated 23.10.2009.

A2. Photo copy of letter dtd. 16.11.2009

A3. Employees pension Scheme Form 10-D( EPS)

 Documents exhibited for the Opposite party:

B1. Photocopy of letter dtd. 07.09.2007  

Witness exhibited for the complainant

PW1.  M.T. Mammeria Kutty (complainant)

Witness exhibited for the opposite party:

            None

SD/- PRESIDENT

Date of filing      : 28-12-2009.

Date of order     : 30-06-2010

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT