15/12/2011.
O R D E R
By Sri.M.S.Sasidharan, Member
The complainant was an employee under the 3rd respondent and a subscriber of Employees Pension Scheme under the provision of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952. Her PF A/c No. was KR/1160/A/873. The complainant resigned from her job under medical ground with effect from 18/12/1997. The complainant submitted application for pension under the employees pension scheme to the 1st respondent through the 3rd respondent. The complainant submitted the application as instructed by the officers of the 3rd respondent and her application is seen to have forwarded from the office of the 3rd respondent on a belated date 17/7/1998. Complainant was informed that pension was sanctioned to her. However thereafter the complainant was intimated from the office of the 1st respondent that the intimation dated 17/7/1998 was the result of a mistake and she has to pay Rs.2,856/- with interest against subscription towards nonworking days during the relevant period so as to be entitled for pension. And the complainant paid the amount. The 1st respondent allowed the pension to the complainant only from 19/7/2004. But the complainant is eligible and entitled for pension from 24/7/2000. Due to this the complainant faced great loss and the acts of the respondents amounts to serious deficiency in service. Hence the complaint filed.
2. 2nd and 3rd respondents are called absent and set exparte.
3. Averments in the counter filed by the 1st respondent are as follows: The complainant was a member of this employees provident fund scheme 1952 and employees pension scheme 1995 by virtue of her employment with the 3rd respondent. The complainant retired from service on 18/12/1997 and applied for settlement of her PF and pension fund accounts. The PF account was promptly settled on 5/5/98 and an amount of Rs.8,885 was released to her Bank a/c. But the application for pension could not be processed at that time for two reasons (i) The complainant attained the age of 50 only on 24/7/2000 (ii) the total eligible service of the complainant was only 6 years less than the minimum service of 10 years required for monthly member pension under the pension scheme. The application submitted by the complainant was returned to the complainant with request to remit an amount of Rs.2856/- for regularizing the non-contributing period so that the eligible service becomes 10 years and the complainant is entitled for monthly pension after 24/7/2000. The complainant submitted the application for pension along with a demand draft for Rs.4,329/- on 19/7/04 and released the admissible pension to her bank account. The complainant remitted the contribution required for fulfilling the eligibility criteria of 10 years on 19/7/04 only and became eligible for pension from that day only. There was no delay or deficiency in service on the part of the 1st respondent in this regard. Hence dismiss the complaint.
4. Points for consideration are :
1) Is the complainant entitled to get the pension as claimed ?
2) Is there any deficiency in service committed by the respondents in this case?
3) If so reliefs and costs ?
5. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P5 and Exhibits R1 to R3 only.
6. The complainant resigned from her job under the 3rd respondent on medical ground with effect on18/12/1997. She applied for pension under the employees pension scheme to the 1st respondent through the 3rd respondent. Even though she was informed on 17/7/1998 that pension was sanctioned to her later it was informed that it was a mistake. She was asked to pay Rs.2856/- with interest against subscription towards nonworking days during the relevant period so as to be entitled for pension. The complainant paid the amount. However the 1st respondent allowed the pension only from 19/7/2004 where as the complainant is eligible to get pension from 24/7/2000. The counter arguments are that due to her retirement the PF A/c. was settled as on 5/5/1998. But the application for pension could not be processed as the complainant attained the age of 50 only on 24/7/2000. Moreover the total eligible service of the complainant was less than the minimum service of 10 years required for monthly member pension. Hence her application was returned and she was asked to pay Rs.2856/- with interest for regularizing the noncontributing period. But the complainant resubmitted the application with money only on 19/7/2004. And admissible pension was released to her account.
7. The Exhibit P4 letter from the 1st respondent revealed that she was asked to retransmit the application after rectifying the defect noted therein. It was also stated therein that the complainant was eligible to get pension from 24/7/2000. Exhibit P4 letter was issued on 8th September 1999. But it is not revealed from Exhibit P1 letter when the amount was paid by the complainant and no evidence is produced in this regard. Even though the date of receiving Exhibit R1 is not clear it is on June 2004. So the amount required should have been remitted by the complainant after that. Exhibit R3 revealed that she paid the required amount on 19/7/2004. Hence it is seen that though the complainant is eligible to get pension from 24/7/2000 it was allowed to her only from 19/7/2004 onwards due to her own fault and the 1st respondent could not be blamed for that.
8. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 15th day of December 2011.
Sd/-
M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Sd/-
Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/-
Rajani.P.S., Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits
Ext. P1 Copy of lr. dt. 26/10/04
Ext. P2 Details of pension payment order
Ext. P3 Employees pension scheme 1995
Ext. P4 Lr. dtd. 8/9/1999
Ext. P5 Lr. dtd. 22/1/98
Respondent’s Exhibits
Ext. R1 Lr. from complainant
Ext. R2 Application for monthly pension
Ext. R3 Lr. dtd. 19/7/04
Id/-
Member .
