Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1920/2017

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Saleema - Opp.Party(s)

Nanditha Haldipur

25 Sep 2023

ORDER

                                                                 Date of Filing : 20.09.2017

                                                            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.1920/2017

 

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner
Sub Regional Office

II Floor, Garaladinni Complex

Saath Kacheri Road

Raichur - 584 101

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)                                           Appellant

 

-Versus-

 

1. Mrs Saleema

    W/o Late Shri Husensab Risaldar

    Age : 56 years

    R/o Bantanur Village

    Tq. Mudhol

    Bagalkot District - 587 101

   (By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)

 

2. The Divisional Controller

    NWKRTC

    Bagalkot Division

    Divisional Office

    Navanagar, Bagalkot                                                  Respondents

    (By Mrs S Nirmala, Advocate)

                                                               

   : ORDER :

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by Complainant aggrieved by the Order dated 25.07.2017 passed in Complaint No.160/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bagalkot (for short, the District Forum).

2.       This Commission heard the Arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant.  Inspite of service of Notice neither the Respondents nor their counsels on record appeared, hence, their arguments has been taken as heard.

3.       On Perusal of the records, it reveals that the District Forum after enquiring into the matter in its entirety, deemed it fit to allow the Complaint in part and directed OP2 to re-calculate the pensionable amount as per Table “C” with accrued interest of 9% p.a from 24.12.1997 till the realisation of the amount to the Complainant.  Further directed OP2 to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant, etc.,

 

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP2/The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds that the District Forum failed to note that, when the Member died on 24.12.1997, the Application for Widow Pension has been made in October 2014 which was incomplete, the same was returned on 08.10.2014 and the Form completed in all respects with requisite documents was furnished in October 2015.   The District Forum erroneously held that there is deficiency in service on part of the Appellant, imposed cost and compensation without taking into consideration act of failure on the part of the Respondent No.2 to furnish details of Respondent No.1 - her Husband, sought from them.   Thus, Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

 

5.       Perused the impugned order and the grounds of Appeal. It appears that the Late Husensab Risladar, the husband of Respondent No.1 was an employee of NWKRTC, Bagalkot Division, Bagalkot/OP1. He joined the service of OP No.1 on 01.08.1977; during his service, he was the member of Employees Provident Fund Organisation, contributed his contribution to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995.  He had expired on 23.12.1997 while he was in service of OP1 and put in total 20 years of service.    

6.       The Learned counsel for Appellant submits that husband of the Respondent died in the year 1997 and at that time the maximum wages on which pension contribution could be made was Rs.5,000/-.  That on 01.06.2001, the maximum pensionable salary was increased to Rs.6,500/-, which cannot be applied to the Complainant/ Respondent No.1 herein. Further submitted that the Widow Pension shall be increased by Rs.20/- p.m for every increase in wages of Rs.50/- or part thereof, subject to the maximum of Rs.1,750/- has to be followed. Further, on perusal of the calculation Memo enclosed to the Synopsis of the Arguments filed by the Appellant, wherein, it is stated that ‘In case of death of the member while in service, widow is eligible for monthly widow pension as per Para 16 2(a) (i) of the Employees Scheme 1995.  In this case, widow Smt. Saleema is eligible for monthly Widow Pension as per Table C of EPS Scheme 1995. Accordingly, the monthly widow pension of Rs.1750/- and pension relief of Rs.236/- has been allowed and Rs.1986/- (Rs.1750+236) monthly widow pension has been fixed and is being paid to the Complainant Smt. Saleema, W/o Late Husensab Risaldar.

 

 

7.       The observation of the District Forum in Para 6 and 7 of its Order that the Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Bagalkot Division/OP1 has submitted all necessary service particulars with documents of the Complainant to the office of OP No.2 and OP2 allotted the Pension Payment Order No.GB/RCH/47457 by fixing the Monthly Widow Pension at Rs.1,750/- per month w.e.f 24.12.1997 to Smt.Saleema and monthly widow pension for the month of October 2015 has been credited to the savings account of the Complainant through Bank Reconciliation Statement and an amount of Rs.4,20,435/- towards initial pension arrears for the period 24.12.1997 to 30.09.2015 had been released and credited to SB A/c No.0784101010047 of the complainant during the month of October 2015.  But, the contention of the Counsel for the Complainant that, as per Table ‘C’ the Monthly Widow Pension for wages at Rs.4,602/- is Rs.1,841/-, but, OP2 has paid Rs.1,750/- (Rs 1,841- Rs 1,750 = Rs 91/-) and in view of the difference amount of Rs.91/-, actual pensionable salary should be taken as Rs.6,500/- for Member who had completed 20 years of service and died while in service. OP No.2 has wrongly calculated and fixed Rs.1,750/- p.m, so OP No.2 has to be directed for re-calculating amount of Pension payable along with the arrears amount to the Complainant, as per Law, with accrued interest of 9% p.a, with effect from 24.12.1997 till realisation of the amount by the Complainant.

 

8.       The short question involved in this case would be whether       Table-C Para 44 of the EPS 1995 is applicable to the present case it is seen that the Table-C Para 44 of the EPS 1995, wherein, it is observed that under Notification No.F.65012/1/2000/SS-II dated 27.09.2001 is omitted has to be considered to refix the pension in the case of employees drawing wages above Rs.3,500/- p.m.    In this regard, it is unfortunate to make mention that the Appellant preferred this Appeal on the basis of Note under table ‘C’, which was omitted subsequently on 27.09.2001.  As such, in our view, the District Forum has rightly held directing OP2 to re-calculate the pension as per table ‘C’ with accrued interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 24.12.1997 till the realisation of the amount by the Complainant, which does not call for any interference for the grounds set out in this Appeal.   Accordingly, Appeal is Dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

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

 

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

 

 

                                                                    President

*s