Karnataka

StateCommission

A/190/2013

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parappa S/o. Bharmapa Tirakannavar - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

25 Sep 2023

ORDER

                                                                   Date of Filing:16.02.2013

Date of Disposal:25.09.2023

 

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

 

DATED:25.09.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.190/2013

 

The Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan

“New Block No.10”

Behind Income Tax Office

Navanagar, Hubli-580 025                                                       Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

 

Sri Parappa

S/o Bharmapa Tirakannavar

Aged 54 years

R/o Belagavi Village

Tq :Hukkeri

Belgaum District                                                             Respondent

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This Appeal is filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 26.09.2012 passed in Consumer Complaint No.259/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Belgaum(for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       This Commission heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant. Inspite of service of Notice on Respondent, none appeared and hence his arguments is taken as heard.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to pay the monthly pension to the Complainant as per the scheme including the arrears i.e., difference of Rs.185/- p.m and accordingly the pension shall be settled.

          Further the OP shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant towards cost of the proceedings etc,

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter-alia, contending amongst other grounds, that the District Forum failed to give reasons for coming to the conclusion that there is difference of Rs.185/- in calculation of pension.  The District Forum failed to take into consideration that this Appellant has rightly calculated the pension to be paid to the Respondent and erroneously came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service, when it is basically the interpretation of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.  Hence, Impugned Order is arbitrary, illegal and the same deserves to be set aside by allowing the Appeal.

5.           Perused the Impugned Order, documents relied in the Appeal and grounds of Appeal. It is observed that the Complainant was an employee of M/s. Gogate Textile Ltd., Belgaum; he joined the service in the year 1985; he was the member of Employees Provident Fund Organisation; contributed his contribution to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971; continued to contribute subsequently to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995 also and he retired from the service during the year 2007.

6.       Further it is observed that he rendered past service of 10 years and pensionable service of 12 years. Thus, as per proviso to Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995, the Respondent has to comply with the condition of either attaining the age of 58 years or completion of 20 years of pensionable service.  In the case on hand, it is observed that the Complainant had retired during 2007 by rendering pensionable service of more than 20 years and has complied with the condition of amendment to Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood before 24.07.2009, hence, he is entitled for weightage of 2 years and also entitled to receive the revised Monthly Pension with arrears, as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007. Fact remains that since the Complainant has not been superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations and should have subjected the Member to his entitlement for Reduced monthly Pension at reduction rate of 3% for every year of short fall in his service, as the age of the Member qualifying for benefits under the PF scheme, fell short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995.   In such circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that impugned order is just and proper.   Accordingly, Appeal is Dismissed with no order as to costs. Taking into consideration the vintage of the case, the Appellant is directed to comply with the Order of the District Commission within 60 days of this Order, if not already done. 

 

7.       The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

 

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

 

 

                                                                    President

*s