SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.

            .

This complaint  is filed seeking  sanction of pension.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant was an employee of State Farming Corporation  during the period from 1.1.75 to 31.3.2000.  He was superannuated  on completion of 58 years.   The complainant was a member of Employees Provident Fund and applied for pension under the EPF.  He has filed for necessary documents including attested copy of school certificate for sanctioning pension.   At the time of joining he has given  the S.S.L.C. book for the verification he has also enclosed clarification letter No.P-3/8/Orrisa/97 dated 1.6.99.  The opp.parties have received contribution towards pension from the complainant from1.1.1975 to3/2000.  However he was not sanctioned pension which is deficiency  in service on the part of the opp.party.  Hence the complaint.

     The first opp.party filed a written version.  It is  admitted that the complainant was an employee of State Farming Corporation ,Nallippally.P.O. Punalur, Kollam which is a factory  under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.  The complainant joined the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 with effect from 1.1.19975 at the age of 43 years. As such the date of birth of the complainant is 1.1.1932 and he had attained the age of 60 years on 1.1.1992.  As per the erstwhile Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971 the membership ceases on attaining the age of 60 years  Hence the complainant has attained the age of 60 years long before the EPS 1995 has  been introduced.  Hence the application submitted by the complainant was rejected and his PF account was settled on 27.9.2000  and he had withdrawn the PF accumulation  by merging the pension contribution to the PF account from 92-93 onwards.   The complainant again applied for pension with a copy of SSLC book  The original certificate  has not produced by the complainant .  His application for pension will be considered provided he refunds the pension contribution  already received with interest as stated along with the amount required for the regulation of break in service as on 15.11.1995.  Hence the first opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint  with a direction to the complainant  to apply in Form 10-D ,  along with the original school certificate and  challan showing the remittance of pension contribution and break regularization amount

          The 2^nd opp.party filed a separate version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.    The complainant is not a consumer  under the Consumer Protection Act.   The complainant retired from service  on  31.3.2000.  As per  his school register his date of birth  is 18.3.1942.    He was kept under Suspension from 17.7.1995 to 5.7.96 and was paid only substance allowance during these period.  Later on he was exonerated as per  order dated 8.3.1999 treating the period of suspension  as on duty  and was paid arrears for which PF subscription Rs. 3586/- was deducted  and remitted  to the first opp.party.   There is no latches on the side of the 2^nd opp.party.  Hence the 2^nd opp.party also prays to dismiss the complaint. 

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether the complainant is entitled to get pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995.

2.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

3.     Re.iefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.   Ext. P1 and P2 are marked

For the opp.parties DW.1  and 2 are examined and Ext. D1 and D2 are marked.

          This complaint was originally disposed of by this Forum on 31.3.2003.  Against that order the 1^st opp.party filed appeal before the State Commission as Appeal No.590/2003.  As per judgement dated 7.9.2005 the State Commission remanded this case for fresh disposal.

          After remand Ext.D3 series were marked on the side of the opp.parties.

Points:

It is now an admitted fact that the complainant is entitled to get pension after production of his SSLC book.  Now the only dispute is regarding payment of a sum which according to opp.party is the pension contribution given to the complainant along with Provident Fund accumulation as the complaint was found not entitled to get pension prior to the production of SSLC book.   The contention of the complainant is that the pension contribution was not given to him along with PF Accumulation.

          Ext. D3 series is the documents produced by the opp.party in appeal which was forwarded to this forum.   The opp.party has also produced the worksheet of calculation of Provident Fund and Pension contributions which would show that the payment of Rs.186782/- is inclusive of pension contribution.  It goes without saying that when pension is refused originally there is no purpose in retaining the pension contribution.  Whether the payment of pension contribution also is due to any mistake of the opp.party or not the complainant will have to pay pension contribution for getting his pension sanctioned.   This case was originally disposed of by this Forum in 2003 and thereafter the matter was taken up in appeal by the opp.party.   The case was remanded by the State Commission and till now this matter was pending adjudication before this Forum.  So we are of the view that no interest can run on the amount given to the complainant after 2003.

          The complainant is a Senior citizen having no proved source of income.   The opp.party filed an affidavit dated 23^rd March 2008 wherein the 1^st opp.party has agreed to grant pension provided the complainant deposit Rs.27,458/- and the interest accrued upto  the date of deposit and the complainant filing  Form 10-D application.  The opp.party  has also enclosed a copy of a letter dated 14.12.2007 which shows that the complainant sought for adjusting the above sum against  the arrears due to him which has been rejected by opp.party 1.  As argued by the complainant’s counsel the complainant is a Senior citizen and he is unable to raise such amount even if it is for getting his pension sanctioned.   As we said earlier the interest on the above amount cannot run after 31.3. 2003 as the matter was taken in appeal by the   1^st opp.party and after remand this case was pending adjudication till now.  Taking all aspects into consideration we are of the view  that the complainant has to pay Rs.18.745/- with interest upto 31.3.2003 . being the pension contribution received by him along with  PF accumulations   Considering the inability of complainant to pay such sum in a lump we fact that it is only just and proper to direct the 1^st opp.party to sanction pension to the complainant on his filing Form 10D and  depositing 1/5the  of Rs.18,745/-  with interest accrued upto 31.3.2003  within two months . The balance amount will be adjusted from the arrears of pension due to the complainant.  We find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.  Point found accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing the 1^st opp.party to sanction pension to the complainant on his filing Form 10D with chalan receipt for having  deposited 1/5 of Rs.18,745/- with interest accrued upto 31.3.2003 within two months from today.  The   balance amount will be adjusted  by the 1^st opp.party in the arrears of pension amount due to the complainant.   The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.  The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of  filing Form 10D by the complainant.

            Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2009

I n d e x

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Sadasivan Nair

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – S.S.L.C. Certificate

P2. – Letter sent by 1^st opp.party to the complainant

List of witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – Bhojarajan

DW.2. –K.P. Balagopalan

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. – Letter sent by 1^st opp.party to the 2^nd opp.party

D2. – Letter sent by 1^st opp.party to the complainant