Karnataka

StateCommission

A/787/2022

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri anil S/o Mahadev padaki, Aged about 70 years - Opp.Party(s)

Shwetha Anand

30 Jun 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :12.03.2022

Date of Disposal :30.06.2023

 

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

 

DATED:30.06.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.784/2022 to 788/2022

 

 

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)
Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax office,

Navanagar,

Hubballi-580025
(By Mrs Shwetha Anand, Advocate)                               Appellant

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

         -Versus-

1.Appeal No.784/2022

Mr Srirang

S/o Mr Bhimrao Kittur,

Aged about 66 Years .
R/at Srivatsa Building,

R.K.Nagar, 2^nd Main,

Near Durgadevi Temple,

Dharwad-580003                                                       Respondent 

 

2. Appeal No.785/2022

Mr Yallappa F Subbai

S/o Mr FakirappaSubbai,

Aged about 70 Years .
R/at H.No.6/4,

Kurubar Oni,

Unkal Hubballi-580031,

Dharwad District                                                     Respondent 

 

3. Appeal No.786/2022                                                        

Mr Veerappa

S/o Mr Channabasappa Hadapad,

Aged about 62 years
R/at Rayanal Post 580024,

Hubballi Taluk,

Dharwad Distrct                                                      Respondent

 

4. Appeal No.787/2022

Mr Anil

S/o Mr Mahadev Padaki,

Aged about 70 years
R/at H.No.41,

Vivekanand Nagar,

Gokul Road, Hubballi-580030                                  Respondent 

 

5. Appeal No.788/2022

Mr Kallayya

S/o Mr Shvayya Dangiyavar,

Aged about 72 Years .
R/at Kamakshi Krupa,

M.R.Nagar,

Daivajna Nagar,

Dharwad-588001                                                     Respondent 

 

:COMMON ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       These Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 30.11.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.138/2019 139/2019, 140/2019, 141/2019 & 142/2019 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (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 Counsels on record.

03.     The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, deemed it fit to allow the Complaints in part and directed the OP to revise the Monthly Pension of all the Complainants, as claimed in their respective Complaints from the respective dates of their retirement and pay the arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 10% p.a as and when arrears has become due.   Further directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards cost and compensation to each of the Complainants.

04.     Being aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds, that he had revised the Monthly Pension by granting 2 years of weightage and arrears have been paid in Appeal No.785 and 788/2022 and hence, there is no error in calculation of revision of pension.  Further she contended that after granting weightage of two years, there is no change in pension in respect of Respondents in Appeal No.784, 786 & 787/2022.   The District Commission ought not to have awarded interest at the rate of 10% p.a on the arrears of pension amount on revision.   It is the Public Exchequer Money which is put to loss.   Therefore, Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by Dismissing the Complaints.

05.     During the course of arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Complainants/Respondents herein,in all these cases submitted that all the Respondents are eligible for weightage of two years, even though they had opted for Reduced Pension, as there is a provision under Para 12 (7) of EPS 95 to reduce the Pension @ 3% for every year to the extent of the age that falls short of 58 years.  Further, she submitted that the Complainants in each of the case are eligible for past service benefit, as per the un-amended Para Nos 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) (a & b) and while calculating the age, Appellant has to round off completed service of more than 6 months & less than 1 year to the next higher year slab. 

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, in support of her submission, referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 28.09.1984 in the case of Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1984 Law Suit (SC) 270 and submitted that in the said decision, it was clearly stated that, as on the date of retirement of the Pensioner, the prevailing pension rules will be applicable and that may be taken into consideration in all these cases.

06.     Perused the Impugned Order and grounds of Appeal.  Perusal of the records reveals that the Complainants havejoined the Employee Provident Fund Scheme, they contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, they continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. After they retired from their services, they came to know that there are errors in calculation of their entitled Monthly Pension and gave representations to the OP to rectify the same, but, since OP did not rectify the same, they filed their respective Complaints before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.   On the contrary, OP denied the error in fixation and payment of monthly pension to the respective Complainants.

07.     Let us examine the details of service particulars of each of the Complainant as per records in all these cases, which is as under:

Appeal No.	Complaint No.	Date of Birth	Date of entry into service	Date of retirement	Past service	Actual service	Age as on retirement
784/ 2022	138/2019	19.12.1954	1975	19.12.1999 Opted for pension from 23.12.2004	20	04	51
785/ 2022	139/2019	01.12.1950	1980	03.04.2004	15	08	54
786/ 2022	140/2019	20.07.1958	1978	01.04.2004 Opted for pension from 21.07.2008	17	05	50
787/ 2022	141/2019	-	1976	01.09.2000 Opted for pension from 01.04.2001	19	05	50
788/ 2022	142/2019	04.12.1948	1978	01.04.2004 Opted for pension from 21.12.2004	17	08	56

 

Thus, it is observed from the contents of the above table, the Complainants in Appeal Nos.784 to 788/2022 retired from their service before attaining the age of Superannuation.  However, they rendered pensionable service of more than 20 years and complied with the condition as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995, as it stood before 24.07.2009, hence, they are eligible for weightage of two years.

08.     With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension for all these Complainants, it is seen that all the Complainants have retired earlier to 15.06.2007 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007. 

09.     Taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, decided on 28.09.1984 in the case of Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1984 Law Suit (SC) 270, it was held that “Retrospective amendment of the Rule curtailing amount of pension so payable : Pension: Hyderabad General Clauses Act 1308 F Section 2(22) : States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1945) Section 115 (7) proviso: Labour and services: Constitution of India Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(1) (as stood prior to their omission on June 20, 1979) should be payable under the Rules as in force at the time of retirement; Although previous sanction of Central Government under Section 115 of States Re-organisation Act for retrospective amendment of Rule 299(1)(b) of Hyderabad Civil  Service Rules is not required, where the person affected retiring prior to the appointed day stipulated under the Act”. 

Also, the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur Vs Vasanth Madhav Kerur and others in Revision Petition No.765/2013, wherein, it was held that “the aggregated past service and actual service (period of service form 16.11.1995 onwards) has to be considered for the purpose of calculation of weightage of two years”.

 

10.     Thus with the above observation, all the Complainants are entitled for revision of their monthly pension.  Further, the fact remains that, when the Complainants have not been superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations and should have subjected these Members to their entitlement for Reduced monthly Pension at reduction rate of 3% for every year of short fall in their service in attaining the age of Superannuation, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995.  In such view of the matter, the act of OP in not revising pension of the Complainants amounts to deficiency in service.

11.     Under the above circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum is just and proper.  However, we are of the considered view that awarding of interest @ 10% p.a is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal Nos.784/2022 to 788/2022 are allowed in part.  Consequently, Impugned Order dated 30.11.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.138/2019 139/2019, 140/2019, 141/2019 & 142/2019 respectively is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned.  The cost and compensation of Rs.4,000/- awarded to each of the Complainants by the District Forum shall remain un-disturbed and the Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this Order.

 

12.     The Statutory Deposit in all these Appeals is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

13.     Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.784/2022 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

 

 

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

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                              President

*s