Karnataka

StateCommission

A/718/2017

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rangashamaiah H - Opp.Party(s)

Nalini Venkatesh

14 Aug 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :22.03.2017

                                                               Date of Disposal :14.08.2023

 

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

 

DATED:14.08.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.718/2017 to 729/2017

 

 

APPEAL Nos.718/2017 to 729/2017

 

 

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

Regional Office: Peenya,

No.62, 3^rd Cross, Industrial Suburb,

Yeshwanthpur 2^nd Stage,

Bengaluru-560 022                                                           Appellant

(By Mrs Nalini Venkatesh, Advocate)

 

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

         -Versus-

1. Appeal No.718/2017

1. Mr Rangashamaiah H
    S/o Late Hanumaiah Hasanapura,

    Kesaramadu Post,

    Urdage Hobli,

    Tumakuru
    (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)        

 

2. The General Manager,
    HMT Watch Factory-4,

    Devarayapatna,

    Tumakuru.                                                            Respondents

 

2. Appeal No.719/2017

    1. Mr Lakshmaiah R .
        S/o Mr Ramakrishnaiah,

        D.No.130, Mathru Nilaya,

        Behind Water Tank,

        Lal Bahadur Shastri Road,

        Vidyanagar, Tumakuru.

        (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)    

                  

2. The General Manager,
    HMT Watch Factory-4,

    Devarayapatna,

    Tumakuru.                                                            Respondents

  

 

3. Appeal No.720/2017

    1. Mr Krishnaiah .
        S/o late Veerasiddaiah

        Aged about 61 years,

        R/o Lal Bahadur Shastry Road,

        Behind Water Tank,

        Vidya Nagar, Tumakuru.

        (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)

 

   2. The Principal
       Siddaganga Institute of Technology (SITO)

       Tumakuru.                                                              Respondents 

 

4. Appeal No.721/2017

     1. Mr Prasanna Kumar S.
          S/o Mr T.S. Shivarudrappa,

          Aged about 62 years,

          D.No.191, Ashok Nagar,

          Tumakuru-572 103.

          (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)

 

     2. The General Manager,
         HMT Watch Factory-4,

         Devarayapatna,

         Tumakuru.                                                          Respondents 

 

5. Appeal No.722/2017

 1. Mr Nagaraju T.S.
     S/o Shivanna M.

     Aged about 63 years,

     Near Neelakanteshwara       

     Temple, Hirehalli & Post.

     Tumakuru

     (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)

 

 2. The Divisional Controller
      KSRTC, Divisional Office,

      Bus stand Tumakuru.                                Respondents

 

 

 

 6. Appeal No.723/2017

    1. Mr Siddaraju T.A .
        S/o late G.A. Appajappa,

        Mathru Mamatha,

        1st B Link Road,

        Maruthi Nagar,

        Tumakuru

        (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)                                      Respondent 

 

    2. The General Manager,
         HMT Watch Factory-4,

         Devarayapatna,

         Tumakuru.                                                         

 

7. Appeal No.724/2017

    1. Mr Siddalingappa A .
        S/o late Adavappa 3-A, Cross,

        Gangothri Road, Gangothri Nagar,

        SIT Extension, Tumakuru

        (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)                                  Respondents                                                    

         

    2. The General Manager,
         HMT Watch Factory-4,

         Devarayapatna,

         Tumakuru.                                                                                                             

8. Appeal No.725/2017

    1. Mr B.Narasimhaiah .
         S/o late Bhuthanna,

         C/o Thippeswamy,

         Sridevi Krupa,

         Nrupathunga Extension,

         5th Main, 2nd Cross,

         Settihalli Road,

         Tumakuru-572 102.   

         (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)   

 

    2. The General Manager,
        HMT Watch Factory-4,

        Devarayapatna,

        Tumakuru                                                          Respondents                                                        

                                                 

9. Appeal No.726/2017

1. Mr P.B. Narasimha Murthy .
    S/o Mr Babanna,

    Aged about 56 years,

    Swetha Nilaya,

    9th Cross, 2nd Main,

    Ashoka Nagar,

    Tumakuru-572 103.

 

2. The General Manager,
    HMT Watch Factory-4,

    Devarayapatna,

    Tumakuru                                                               Respondents                                                     

                              

10. Appeal No.727/2017

1. Mr Mohammed Riyaz U.R. Rehaman .
    S/o late Mohammed Yemnoor Rehaman,

    aged about 62 years,

    Sadashiva Nagar,

    Near Narasimhaswamy Temple,

    6th Main Road, Devegowda Layout,

    Tumakuru.

    (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)        

                            

  

2. The Divisional Controller (D.C.)
    KSRTC,

    Divisional Office Bus Stand,

    Tumakuru.                                                                 Respondents 

 

11. Appeal No.728/2017

 1. Mr Dodde Gowda M.L .
     S/o Mr Lakshmanappa,

     Aged about 60 years,

     Mallasandra,

     Opp. Railway Station, Tumakuru.    

     (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)

                                                         

2. The General Manager,
    HMT Watch Factory-4,

    Devarayapatna,

    Tumakuru.                                                                 Respondents

           

12. Appeal No.729/2017

1.   Mr A.R. Srinivasa Murthy
      S/o late Rangadasaiah,

      Aged about 59 years,

      Sree Ranga, 6th Cross,

      Link Road, 2nd Main,

      Vijayanagar, Tumakuru.     

      (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)

2. The General Manager,
    HMT Watch Factory-4,

    Devarayapatna,

    Tumakuru.                                                                 Respondents

:COMMON ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

01.     These Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP1, aggrieved by the Order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.147/2015 to 158/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur (for short, the District Forum). Since the facts and law involved in all these cases are one and the same, they have been taken up together for consideration.

 

 

 

02.     This Commission heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant and Respondent No.1.  Inspite of service of Notice on Respondent No.2 in all these cases, none appeared and hence, their arguments are taken as heard

03.     The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint with cost of Rs.2,000/-to each of the Complainants and directed OP1/The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to re-calculate the Monthly Pension of the Complainants, as per Para 12(3) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 by giving weightage of two years to all the Complainants & also extend minimum assured benefits- both in respect of past and present service, with effect from the respective dates of retirement of each of the Complainants, along with arrears of Pension with interest @ 12% p.a and to pay Annual Relief as per Para 32 of EPS 1995 and Dismissed the Complaints as against OP2.

04.     Being aggrieved by this order, OP1 is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds, that the Department has already regulated the Pension Claim of the Respondent No.1 in all the cases as per Para 10(2) read with Para 12(3) of EPS 1995.  Further Appellant contended that, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues involving interpretation of Statues/Rules/Circulars.     The jurisdiction of the forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is confined to deficiency in service.   Further, if any doubt arises regarding calculation of pension by applying the scheme/rules, the same can be questioned only in the Hon’ble High Courts, which in exercise of powers under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India can resolve the issues by grant of appropriate relief.   The District Forum has failed to take into consideration that the Respondent has rightly calculated the pension.  Hence, Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Orders by allowing the Appeals.

05.     Perused the Impugned Orders and grounds of Appeal.  On perusal of the records, it is observed that Complainants during their service, joined the Employee PF Scheme; contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995 also.  After they retired from their services, they came to know that there are errors in calculation of their entitled pension and gave representations to the OP1 to rectify the same, but, OP did not rectify the mistakes committed in sanction of pension and hence, they filed their respective Complaints before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.   On the contrary, OP1 denied the error in fixation and payment of pension to the respective Complainants

06.     Let us examine whether the Complainants are entitled for re-fixation of his Monthly Pension by adding 2 years of weightage, besides examining whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP1?

07.     On perusal of the records, the service particulars of the Complainants are as under:

Appeal No.	Complaint No.	Date of birth	Date of joining	Date of retirement	Past service	Actual service	Age at exist
718/2017	147/2015	22.07.1959	03.10.1980	30.09.2010	15Y 08M 16D	14Y 10M 15D	51
719/2017	148/2015	08.07.1958	20.08.1979	31.07.2011	15Y 2M	15Y 8M 16D	53
720/2017	149/2015	12.02.1954	03.09.1979	11.02.2012	16Y 2M 12D	16Y 2M 20D	58
721/2017	150/2015	06.08.1951	13.02.1986	01.01.2011	9Y     9M 3D	15Y 1M 16D	60
722/2017	151/2015	15.05.1952	28.01.1980	14.05.2010	15Y 9M 17D	14Y 5M 29D	58
723/2017	152/2015	18.06.1960	26.11.1979	31.03.2003	15Y 10M 19D	07Y 04M 16D	43
724/2017	153/2015	18.04.1959	26.11.1979	30.03.2013	14Y 10M 23D	17Y 4M 16D	54
725/2017	154/2015	01.11.1956	21.01.1980	31.07.2011	15Y 9M 24D	15Y 8M 15D	55
726/2017	155/2015	18.02.1960	03.09.1979	30.07.2011	16Y 2M 12D	15Y 8M 15D	51
727/2017	156/2015	15.05.1953	01.10.1988	12.05.2011	9Y 8M 14D	15Y 5M 29	58
728/2017	157/2015	26.04.1955	25.05.1982	05.04.2013	14Y 2M 14D	17Y 4M 9D	58
729/2017	158/2015	22.11.1956	06.08.1979	31.03.2003	16Y 3M 9D	7Y 4M 16D	47

 

As per the contents of the above table, it is observed that Complainants/Respondents herein in Appeal Nos.723/2017 & 729/2017, retired prior to attaining the age of Superannuation and rendered pensionable service of 20 years & more. Both of them have complied with the conditions as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood before 24.07.2009, hence, both the Complainants are eligible for weightage of two years.

          Likewise, the Complainants/Respondents herein in Appeal Nos.720/2017, 721/2017, 722/2017, 727/2017 and 728/2017 retired on attaining the age of Superannuation and rendered pensionable service of 20 years & more.  They have complied with the conditions as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood after 24.07.2009 hence, these Complainants are also eligible for weightage of two years.

          Whereas, Complainants/Respondents herein in Appeal Nos.718/2017, 719/2017, 724/2017, 725/2017 and 726/2017 retired prior to 58 years and rendered pensionable service of 20 years & more, but, not complied with the conditions as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood after 24.07.2009, hence, these Complainants/ Respondents are not eligible for weightage of two years.

With regard to Calculation of Monthly Pension to the Complainantsin Appeal Nos.723/2017 and 729/2017, it is observed that both of them retired earlier to amendment of 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995.

,,         In so far as Calculation of Monthly Pension to Complainants in rest of the Appeals, it is observed that all these Complainants had retired after amendment of 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood after 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995. 

The fact remains that, if the Complainants have not been superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own laid down Rules & Regulations and should have subjected these Members to their entitlement for Reduced monthly Pension at reduction rate of 3% or 4% for every year of short fall in their service, as the age of the Members qualifying for benefits under the PF scheme, falls short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995. 

dd

Further, the benefit under Para 32 of the Scheme i.e., Annual Relief, it is only Central Government which can grant such reliefs and not the OP1.

08.     During the course of arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that they had granted weightage of two years and arrears of entitled Pension amounts have been paid in Appeal Nos.720/2017, 721/2017, 727/2017 and 728/2017 and in rest of the Appeals they have righty fixed pension to the complainants and there is no deficiency in service on his part.

09.     Thus with the above observations, the appellant is hereby directed to grant weightage of two years and re-fix the entitled Monthly Pension in so far as Appeal No.722/2017, 723/2017 and 729/2017 as stated supra.

10.     On perusal of the documents produced on record it is observed that Appellant has revised the monthly pension by granting weightage of two years and paid the arrears of the complainants in Appeal Nos.720/2017, 721/2017, 727/2017 and 728/2017 in the year 2016, belatedly, since the Complainants have retired during 2003, 2010, 2011 and 2013 respectively.   In so far as in Appeal No.718/2017 719/2017, 724/2017 and 725/2017 Appellant has fixed the entitled Monthly Pension of the Complainants as per rule of Employees Provident Scheme.

11.     However, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum awarding interest @ 12% p.a on the arrears of pension is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Under the circumstances, the Impugned Orders requires to the interfered with, in the following terms.

Appeal Nos.720/2017, 721/2017, 722/2017, 723/2017, 727/2017, 728/2017 and 729/2017 are allowed in part. Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.149/2015, 150/2015, 151/2015, 152/2015. 156/2017, 157/2016 and 158/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by it. The cost awarded by the District Forum of Rs.2,000/- each to these Complainants shall remain un-disturbed. Further Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this Order

          However, Appeal Nos.718/2017, 719/2017, 724/2017, 725/2017 and 726/2017 are allowed and consequently, the Impugned Orders passed by the District Forum in Consumer Complaint Nos.147/2015, 148/2015, 153/2015, 154/2016 and 155/2015 are Dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

The statutory deposit in Appeal 720/2017, 721/2017, 722/2017, 723/2017, 727/2017, 728/2017 and 729/2017is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful

          The statutory deposit in 718/2017, 719/2017, 724/2017, 725/2017 and 726/2017 is directed to be refunded to the Appellant with proper identification by his Advocate.

          Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.718/2017 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

 

 

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

 

 

 

                                                         

                                                                   President

*s