BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 27/05/2011

Date of Order : 29/09/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 271/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complainant was an employee in H.M.T. Ltd., Kalamassery from 1981 onwards. The complainant was a subscriber to the Employees' Contributory Provident Fund Scheme for enabling the complainant to have pension from the opposite parties on retirement. On 07-12-2001, the complainant had taken voluntary retirement. Thereafter, the opposite parties under one pretext or the other was postponing the payment of pension. After a lapse of 8 years in February 2009, the complainant was informed by the 2^nd opposite party by letter dated 02-02-2009, that the payment of monthly pension with effect from 11-05-2007 @ Rs. 854/- is sanctioned and also informed that pension arrears from May 2007 to January 2009 is also allowed to the complainant. The opposite parties failed to pay the arrear amount of pension from December 2001 till April 2007, which amounts to Rs 42,250/- @ Rs. 650/- per month. The complainant caused a letter to the opposite parties dated 21-03-2009 highlighting his grievances to which they replied stating their reasons. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 42,250/- with 12% interest together with Rs. 10,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Hence this complaint.

2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :-

The complainant was a member of Employees' Pension Scheme 1995. The complainant opted to leave the service with effect from 07-12-2001 under voluntary retirement scheme. On 18-08-2008, the complainant preferred application for monthly pension. The complainant was sanctioned monthly pension @ 854/- with effect from 11-05-2007. Since the complainant had not furnished any specific date for commencement of early pension, the monthly pension was sanctioned from the date of attainment of 58 years. However, as per paragraph 12 (7) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 a member if so, he desires may be allowed to draw early than monthly pension from a date earlier than 58 years of age, but not earlier than 50 years of age. There is no provision under the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 to pay full pension on attaining the age of 58 years in the case of a member who has opted for early pension before attaining the age of 58 years as claimed by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked. The witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 42,250/- with interest from the opposite parties?

2. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5. Point No. i. :- The undisputed issues of the parties are as follows :

1. The complainant was an employee of H.M.T. Ltd.

2. The complainant was a member of Employees' Pension Scheme 1995.

3. The complainant had taken voluntary retirement from service with effect from 07-12-2001 evident from Ext. A1.

4. The date of birth of the complainant is 11-05-1949 and he attained the age of 58 on 11-05-2007.

5. Pension was granted to the complainant by the opposite parties with effect from 11-05-2007 @ Rs. 854/-.

6. Pension arrears with effect from 11-05-2007 to the tune of Rs. 15,941/- also was granted to the complainant.

6. According to the complainant, the opposite party had not disbursed pension arrears from the date of retirement. The complainant seems to maintain that the complainant is entitled to get reduced pension @ Rs. 650/- per month from December 2001 till 30-04-2007, and thereafter, entitled to get full pension since the complainant had completed 58 years of age.

7. In reply to the complainant's letters regarding non-payment of pension arrears, the opposite parties issued Ext. A5 letter dated 09-06-2009 to the complainant which reads as follows :-

“With reference to the letter cited, it is informed that as per the F-10D application received from Sub Regional Office, Kukatpally, Andra Pradesh, you have opted for reduced pension, but you have not furnished the date of commencement of pension in item No. 8 (a) of the F-10/D application and hence as per directions prevailing then date of receipt of application was taken as option. Your application was received at Regional Office, Hyderabad on 18-08-2008. However, as per the office records your date of birth is 11-05-1949 and at the time of receipt of F-10D application you have attained 58 years of age i.e. on 11-05-2007 and therefore superannuation pension @ Rs. 949/- was sanctioned to you from that date. Since you have opted for ROC an amount of Rs. 95/- was deducted from the original pension and net pension comes to Rs. 854/-.”

8. Admittedly, the complainant had not filled out the column No. 8 (a) in Ext. B1 pension application. Accordingly, the opposite parties proceeded with the processing of the pension application as stated in Ext. A5. During evidence, the complainant admitted that he has been receiving full pension from the date of his attainment of 58 years of age that is with effect from 11-05-2007. He further stated that if he had opted to accept pension from the age of 50, he would have been entitled to get the reduced rate of pension only. Since the complainant failed to mention his option of pension in Ext. B1 pension application and since the opposite parties received Ext. B1 after the complainant attaining the age of 58, the only option before the opposite party was to proceed with in accordance with law. In that case, we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, especially since, he does not sustain any monitory loss due to the present scheme applied by the opposite parties in the absence of any option of pension on the part of the complainant. The complaint 'ipso facto' contains irregularities which however does not go against the complainant for due caution by the opposite parties. With the above observations, the proceedings before this Forum in this complaint is closed. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of September 2012

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========