Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1685/2017

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narasimha Rao - Opp.Party(s)

Shweta S

09 Feb 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :07.08.2017

Date of Disposal : 09.02.2023

 

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

 

DATED:09.02.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.1685/2017

 

 

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan

Regional Office

No.13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road

Post Box No.25146

Bengaluru-560 025                                                          Appellant

(By Mrs Shwetha Anand, Advocate)

 

                    -Versus-                       

Mr Narasimha Rao
Aged about 72 years,
1^st Main Road,
1^st Cross, Sriramanagar,
Tumakuru                                                                       Respondent

(By Mr T Ramaiah, Advocate)  

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by OP1 aggrieved by the Common Order dated 03.12.2016 passed in Complaint No.39/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkuru (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels for Appellant & Respondent and Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and material placed on record.

 

3.       It is not in dispute that Respondent/Complainant during his service, joined the Employees PF Scheme; contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and continued to contribute subsequently to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995 till the date of his retirement.   The grievance of the Complainant is that after his retirement OP not fixed the Monthly Pension properly as per EPF scheme. Per contra, the OP has taken a stand that he fixed the monthly pension in accordance with law and there is no error in calculating the pension. The District Forum after enquiring into the matter. allowed the Complaint and directed the OP to re-calculate the Monthly Pension of the Complainant as per Para 12 (3) of EPF Scheme 1995 by giving weightage of two years and extend the minimum assured benefits - both in respect of past service  and present service with effect from the date of retirement, along with arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of retirement, annual relief as per Para 32 of the EPF scheme and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the Date of the Order etc., which is impugned in this Appeal.  

 

4.       On perusal of the document No.32, produced along with the Appeal Memorandum, wherein it is observed that there is no difference in the Monthly Pension initially fixed by the OP at Rs.384/- pm as on the date of retirement of the Complainant and even after revision of the Monthly Pension by adding weightage of two years, which comes to Rs.384/- p.m.  Under these circumstances, OP revised the entitled Monthly Pension as per the EPF scheme 1995 is just and proper.  On the other hand, on perusal of Annexure-2, the Bank Pass Book of the Pensioner produced by learned counsel for Respondent along with Memo, clearly reflects the credit of Rs.384/- to the account of the pensioner which corroborates the statement of Appellant.

 

5.       Further. with regard to Annual Relief awarded by the District Forum under Para 32 of the Scheme, it is observed that the said provision reads as hereunder:

        “32. Valuation of the Employees’ Pension Fund and review of the rates of contributions and quantum of the pension and other benefits – (1) The Central Government shall have an annual valuation of the Employees Pension Fund made by a valuer appointed by it;

        Provided that it shall be open to the Central Government to direct a valuation to be made at such other times as it may consider necessary

2) at any time, when the Employees’ Pension Fund so permits, the Central Government may alter the rate of contributions payable under this Scheme or the scale of any benefit admissible under this Scheme or the period for which such benefit may be given”.

           Thus, by reading the said Provisions, it is noted that it is only the Central Government, which can grant such reliefs and not the OP.  Hence, the same cannot be granted by the OP/Appellant.

With the above observation, Impugned Order requires to be interfered with by allowing the Appeal and consequently, Dismiss the Complaint, with no order as to costs.

 

6        The statutory deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for refund to the OP/Appellant herein.

 

 

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

 

                                                                         President

                                                                     

*s