Karnataka

StateCommission

A/10/2015

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sharfuddin, Since deceased LRs - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

31 Jan 2024

ORDER

Date of Filing :05.01.2015

Date of Disposal : 31.01.2024

 

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

 

DATED:31.01.2024

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K BSANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.10/2015

 

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sub-Regional Office

New Block No.10

Behind Income Tax Officer

Navanagar,Hubli-580 025                                               Appellant                                                                                              Appellant

(ByMrsNandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

Mr Sharifuddin

Since deceased, by LR’s                                        

Smt. Zarabi

W/o Late Sharfuddin

Aged 61 years

R/o House No.933, Jonepet

Opposite Milk Dairy

Ramdurg, Ramdurg Taluk

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 27.11.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint No.181/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad(hereinafter referred to as the District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments of learned Counsel for Appellant. Since, inspite of service of Notice on Respondent, none appeared, hence, arguments of the Respondent is taken as heard.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part, holding that OP already paid arrears of 2 years weightage and arrears of widow pension hence, no balance, only Complainant is entitled to past service benefit.  Accordingly, OP is directed to refix the pension amount as per the Rule Para 12(4) (b) and Read with Rule 10 (2) of EPS 1995 and past service benefit from the date of her husband retirement and balance pension amount be paid to complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, apart from paying Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the litigation, failing which, the balance pension amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of order till its realisation.

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal, inter-alia, contending amongst other grounds that, in this case, as the deceased Member has been receiving Superannuation Pension from 16.11.2004, he was granted weightage of two years.  Accordingly, his Pension was re-fixed and arrears of pension also stands paid.   District Forum failed to take into consideration that, the Respondent has rightly calculated the pension to be paid to the Respondent.  Therefore, the Impugned Order is illegal, contrary to law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside as null and void.  Thus seeks to set aside the Impugned Order.

5.       Perused the Impugned Order, Grounds of Appeal, Memo of Calculation filed along with the Written Arguments and secured records from the District Forum.

6.       The observation of the District Forum in Para 17 of its Impugned Order that ‘Complainant’s husband rendered past service of 13 years, actual service of 9 years and after deducting the NCP days of 288, it comes to 8 years.  Hence, actual service is 8 years, total eligible service works out to 21 years and he retired on attaining the age of 58 years

 Further, the observations of the District Forum in Para 18 of its Impugned Order to the effect that, ‘OP in his Written Version says that Complainant’s age as on 16.11.1995 was 48 years.  But Complainant in his Complaint, 49 years.  On perusal of the Date of Birth of the Complainant, i.e.,16.11.1946 it comes to 49 years.  Hence, at the time of retirement as on 16.11.1995, the age of the Complainant was 49 years.  The OP contended that past service benefit of less than 9 years 2.248 x 105=236 it is correct.   But Complainant prays, as per Para 12(4)(b), that Monthly Pension at Rs.325/- is  entitlement of past service benefit.  Hence, the remaining difference in the Pension amount, the Complainant is entitled for the same from the date of his Retirement, till its realisation’.

7.       No doubt, deceased husband of the Complainant during his service contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and continued to contribute subsequently to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995.  He retired from the service on the attaining the age of Superannuation on 15.11.2004 by rendering 13 years of past service and 9 years of actual service and after deducting NCP of 288 days,  total service will be 21 years, hence he is eligible for getting  weightage of two years and accordingly, his Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007. The allegation of the Complainant is that the calculation of his entitled Monthly Pension of her deceased husband fixed by the OP is wrong.  Per contra, OP contended that he had revised the Monthly Pension by adding 2 years of weightage as per clarification received from the Head Office and arrears also stands paid. 

8.       To sum up, there is no ambiguity for us to declare that the calculation brought out in the PPO with specific reference to the calculation of past service benefit is erroneous. Thus, in our considered opinion, certainly this act of Appellant amounts to deficiency in service.  In the circumstances, the Impugned Order does not call for any interference and Accordingly, Appeal stands Dismissed.

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

10.     Return the LCR forthwith.

 

 

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

 

Lady Member                      Judicial Member                       President

*s