<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed this complaint for allowing Pensionary Benefits under the EPS 1995.<br /> <br /> <br /> The averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant was a worker in the pealing section of opp.party1 company from 15.12.1936 onwards and on attaining 58 years of age, She retired from service on 31.12.1994. The complainant is eligible to get pension under the 1995 scheme for which she filed an application on 2.3.1995 and on enquiry at the office of the 2nd opp.party she come to know that her application was not allowed.. On 17.3.1995 the 2nd opp.party issued a cheque for Rs.13625/- to the complainant on the ground that she is not eligible to get pension. Though the complainant retired from service prior to the come into force of EPS 1995, since it has retrospective effect from 1993 she is entitled to get pension as she was a member of 1971 scheme. The opp.parties committed gross negligence and there is gross deficiency in service on their part in not granting the pensionary benefits to the complainant. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The first opp.party filed a version. It is admitted that the complainant was an employee of the first opp.party’s company from 15.12.1936 to 31.12.1994 and on attaining 58 years of age she was terminated from service. The first opp.party has given all necessary documents to the complainant for applying for pension and it is not known to the first opp.party whether the 2nd opp.party has granted her pension. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the 1st opp.party and the first opp.party was impleaded without any bonafide. Hence the 1st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> The 2nd opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. The complainant was a Non-Family Pension fund Scheme member and her Employees Provident Fund account was settled on 7.3.1995. The complainant was a member of 1952 scheme when Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 was implemented option was given to employees to opt the scheme but the complainant did not opt for joining the scheme and therefore her entire Provident Fund amount was credit in the Employees <br /> Provident Fund which was settled and withdrawn by the complainant in March 1995. Prior to the introduction of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The complainant’s statement that she completed 58 years on 31.12.1994 and applied for monthly pension is wrong and contrary to facts. The monthly pension scheme 1995 has been introduced only with effect from 16.11.1995. The complainant’s date of birth as per the statutory declaration in Form No.2 stands as 1936. The allegation regarding non-communication about her ineligibility of pension is not correct. The complainant was a member of Employees Provident Fund upto 7.3.1995. She never contributed to Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Hence the 2nd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint<br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get pensionary benefits<br /> 3. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 and P2 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1. to D4 are marked.<br /> <br /> Points :<br /> <br /> The contention of 2nd opp.party is that the complaint is barred by limitation. It is argued that the pension application of the complainant was rejected as perExt.D1 on 1.11.1996 but this complaint which ought to have been filed within 2 years was filed only on 4.1.2005 which is hopelessly barred by limitation. Sec. 24A of Consumer Protection Act prescribers a limitation period of 2 years and this complaint is filed after the expiry of about 9 years and that too without any prayer for condonation of delay. Therefore, we are of the view that this complaint barred by limitation. Point found accordingly. <br /> <br /> Point 2:<br /> <br /> Admittedly the complainant retired from service on 31.12.1994 and she has received her Provident fund accumulation in March 95 prior to the commencement of 1995 scheme. Though the complainant would claim that she was a member 1971 scheme no material worth believable was produced to establish that she was a member of 1971 scheme. The definite case of the opp.parties is that the complainant was a non Family Pension Fund Scheme member land their contention is supported by Ext. D4.<br /> <br /> The membership of EPS 1995 is governed by para 6. Para 6 [a] is not applicable in the complainant’s case as she was a member of 1952 scheme prior to 16.11.1995. Paras 6 [b] and [c] are also not applicable as she is a non Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971 member. Para 6 [d] is also not applicable in the complainant’s case as she has not exercised option under para 7 remitting past period contribution with interest thereon referred to in para 17 [3]. The complainant ceased to become the member of 1952 scheme in March 1995 on receipt of Provident Fund accumulation and only during the subsistence of membership in 1952 scheme option to join 1995 scheme can be exercised. So in our view the complainant who ceased membership in 1952 scheme prior to 16.11.1995 will not come under any of the clauses under para 6.<br /> <br /> It is contended by the complainant that EPS 1995 has retrospective effect from 1.4.1993 and therefore she can exercise option to join 95 scheme. We are unable to accept that contention. The only relevance to 1.4.1993 is with regard to para 6 [c] which says that a pension who ceased membership in 1971 scheme between 1.4.1993 and 15.11.1995 can exercise option under para 7. It does not mean that 1995 scheme has retrospective effect from 1.4.1993. For all that has been discussed above we find that the complainant is not entitled to get pensionary benefits under 1995 scheme and that there is no deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. Maria<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Termination order<br /> P2. – Covering letter issued by the opp.party<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – Balagopalan Nair<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. – Letter dated 1.11.1996<br /> D2. – Form NO.2<br /> D3. – Letter dated 27.11.1997.<br /> D4. – contribution card 91-92<br />