Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2596/2016

The Assistant Provident Fundcommissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Vaman S/o Bhimrao Kulkarni - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

14 Dec 2023

ORDER

                                                                     Date of Filing :29.09.2016

  Date of Disposal :14.12.2023

 

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

 

DATED:14.12.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.2596/2016

 

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Sub-Regional Office

New Block No.10

Behind Income Tax Office

Navanagar

Hubli-580 025                                                               Appellant                                                                                      Appellant

(By Mrs.Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

-Versus-

Sri Vaman

S/o Sri Bhimrao Kulkarni

Age: 73 years

R/o Bangar Galli

At PO Gokak

Taluk Gokak

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 16.09.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint No.94/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad(hereinafter referred to as District Forum).

2.       Heard the arguments of Learned counsel for Appellant.  Inspite of service of Notice on the Respondent from this Commission for appearance, since none appeared, arguments of Respondent is taken as heard.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and held that the Complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage and past service benefit and accordingly directed the Respondent to re-fix the Pension amount, as per Para 12(3) (a) and (b), Para 12 (5) (a) (b) read with Para 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 apart from giving weightage of two years and past service benefit from the date of Retirement and balance pension amount be paid to the Complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the Order, failing which, the balance pension amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of Order, till its realisation, apart from paying Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant.

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds that, as per clarification received from the Head Office, weightage of two years has already been granted to the Respondent, but since his Pension was less than the minimum pension of Rs.335/- provided, he was granted the minimum Pension. Hence, even after grant of 2 years weightage, there is no change in the Pension of the Respondent. Further contended that, the District Forum has erroneously held that relief amount of Rs.22/- is not paid.  The Appellant had paid the relief of Rs.22/- to the Complainant.   Further, there is no separate minimum for past service.  Hence, he is not eligible for any refixation and thus seeks to set aside the Impugned Order.

5.       Perused the Impugned Order and grounds of Appeal.

6.       The observation of the District Forum in Para 20 of its impugned order that ‘But respondent says on 16.11.1995 age of Complainant is 54 years, but complainant says age of complainant is 55 years. On perusal of PPO it shows date of birth of Complainant is 01.01.1941.  On 16.11.1995, age of complainant was 54 years.  Hence, less than 4 years is correct, but, complainant calculated less than 3 years.   Table B factor less than 4 years 1.396 is correct.  Respondent calculated past service benefit Rs.112/- is correct.   Complainant’s pensionable service was 3 years, pensionable salary was Rs.1,792/- hence, pension comes 77 but as per Para 12 (5) (a) minimum of Rs.335/- considered.  Respondent calculated after giving weightage pension amount comes Rs.244/- is correct, but, relief amount of Rs.22/- considered total amount of Rs.266/- but Respondent given pension amount Rs.244/-.  Hence, complainant is entitled to relief amount of Rs.22/- from the date of retirement till its realisation.

7.       Perusal of records reveals that the Complainant during his service, contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1995; he retired from the service on attaining the age of Superannuation on 13.12.1998 by rendering 10 years of past service & 3 years of actual service, in total 13 years of service.  Therefore, he is eligible for weightage of two years as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 and his monthly pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007.

8.       According to Appellant, he had revised the Monthly Pension by adding 2 years of weightage and paid the Annual Relief of Rs.22/-.  The only dispute is with regard to the difference in calculation of entitled monthly Pension amount to be payable to the Complainant.

9.       It is crystal clear that, Para 12(3) deals with fixing up of the Pension for an Employee who entered into service earlier to 16.11.1995, by considering the age and service of the Employee as on 16.11.1995.  Thus, under Para 12(3) (b) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the Complainant rendered 10 years of past service and as on the date of retirement his salary was Rs.1,792/-, he is entitled for Pension of Rs.80/-. The age of the Complainant as on 16.11.1995 was 54 years, his past service benefit will have to be calculated as per Table B Factor 1.396 X Rs.80/- = 112/-.  Therefore, his past service benefit is Rs.112/-.  Further as per Para 12 (5)(a) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, complainant minimum pension is fixed at Rs.335/-.  If annual relief is granted at Rs.22/- as per the order of Central Government, total pension amount works out to Rs.112/- + 335/-+22 = 469/-.  Further if any Return of Capital is there, should be calculated at the rate of 10% on total pension amount and it has to be deducted on the total pension amount.

10.     With the above observations, it is also noticed that the Appellant has not produced any document to show as to when they revised the Pension and paid arrears to the Respondent/Complainant.  Thus, in our considered opinion, certainly this act of Appellant amounts to deficiency in service.  In the circumstances, impugned order is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference.  Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

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

                

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

 

 

 

Lady Member                      Judicial Member                      President

*s