F.A.No.449 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.No.64 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM KARIMNAGAR

Between
The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (PEN)
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Sub-Regional Office, Shiva Theatre Complex
Karimnagar-500 001, rep. by its Asst. P.F.Commissioner
Mr.A.K.Singh

Appellant/opposite party

A N D

Sri J.Hanumantha Rao
S/o Rama Rao, aged about 59 yrs
Occ: Retired Employee KDCC Bank Ltd.,
Karimnagar R/o #7-2-866,
Mankammathota, Karimanagar.             Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant             Sri K.Raghuram Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents                Sri J.R.Manohar Rao

QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE  SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT

and

SMT M.SHREESHA,  HON’BLE  MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND TEN

Oral Order :( per  Smt M.Shreesha,  Hon’ble Member)
***

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.64 of 2007 on the file of District Forum Karimnagar, opposite party filed this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant retired from service on attaining superannuation on 30.4.2006.  The complainant is a member of the Employees Provident Fund Organization with EPF A/c No.AP/2441/173 and as such the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 which came into effect from 16.11.1995 is applicable to him.  After retirement from service the complainant submitted his pension papers in Form No.10-D with necessary certificates/enclosures on 8.1.2007 to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Karimnagar. However there was a delay in submission of pension proposals from 1.5.2006 to 8.1.2007 for which the opposite party could have called for reasons but no steps were taken in this regard.  Opposite party instead of admitting the pension claim of the complainant w.e.f.   1.5.2006 has sanctioned pension of Rs.1269/- p.m. w.e.f. 10.1.2007 vide PPO NO.AP/KRN/19901 dated 6.2.2007.  The complainant after noticing the same addressed a letter dated 20.2.2007 to opposite party to consider sanction of pension from 1.5.2006,  but the opposite party informed the complainant vide its letter dated 18.4.2007 that the date of submission of Form-10-D in his office is 10.1.2007 and hence the date of settlement of pension was taken from 10.1.200. In another case of V.Malla Reddy, employee of the same bank even though the pension papers of the said employee were received with delay of more than two years two months after the date of superannuation, opposite party accorded sanction of pension to him from 1.6.2003.    There is no restrictive provision of settlement of pension from the date of receipt of pension papers in the office of opposite party laid down in the EPF and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 as well as in the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  Opposite party has also failed to quote the authority according to which such a notion has been arrived at for sanction of pension from the date of receipt of pension papers instead of 1.5.2006 as admissible under the said Act and Rules.  Hence, the complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to release the admissible pension to the complainant from 1.5.2006 with interest, damages and costs.

        Opposite party filed counter stating that as per the office records member’s age was 25 years as on 1.2.1976 but as per the provisions laid down in clause (a) of (2) para 36 of Employees Provident Fund claim 1952, the employer is required to submit Form-5  and Form 2(R) in respect of employees         qualifying to become the Member of the Fund for the first time during the preceding month.  On that basis the date of birth of the members are accepted and entered in official records.  In the present case the present employer did not submit Form-5 or Form 2(R) hence the date of birth of member was taken from Annexure-K received from AP/2774/126, the PF Code No. of erstwhile establishment where the member worked.  Further, as per the administrative guidelines once the date of birth of the member received through initial returns such as Form-5, Form-2(R) and Form-9 the date of birth is not allowed to be changed except on technical grounds and that too with the approval of the Head Office.  As per the records the member did not attain superannuation age i.e., 58 years on the date of submission of claim form, hence there was no question of calling for reasons for delay in submission of claim form.  The office has correctly processed the claim form for the reduced pension as per the eligibility of the member.  Opposite party further submitted that as per the provisions laid down under sub para (1) of para 12 of EPS’95 a member shall be entitled to:

a)                Superannuation pension if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires on attaining the age of 58 years.

b)                 Retirement pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years

c)                 Short service pension, if he ahs rendered eligible service of 10 years or more but less than 20 years.

As the member did not fall under sub-clause (a) and (c) of above, accordingly the pension claim was processed for retirement pension under clause (b) mentioned above read with sub-para (7) of para 12 of EPS 1995.  In the present case the date of receipt of claim form in this office has been taken as the date of commencement of the pension which in accordance with the administrative guidelines issued by the Head Office. In V.Malla Reddy’s case   the date of birth as per  Form 2® was 10.5.1945 and accordingly his case was processed for superannuation under 12(1)(a) of EPS 1995 and as the member superannuated after attaining 58 years of age, the commencement of pension was fixed w.e.f 10.5.2003.  In the case of the complainant, Form 5 was not submitted by the employer of the present establishment of the complainant and the Form 2(R) of the member was not received by this office while the member was in service.  Hence, his date of birth was taken as per the transfer details received from AP/2774/126.  Hence, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs.A1 to A18 and Exs.B1 to B4, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to sanction the pension of the complainant from 1.5.2006 instead of 10.1.2007 like V.Malla Reddy’s case and pay the arrears if any with 9% interest and costs of Rs.1000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal

The respondent/complainant filed written arguments.

It is the complainant’s case that he retired on 30.4.2006 from KDCC  Bank, Karimnagar and he has applied for sanction of pension on 8.1.2007 along with Form 10-D to the opposite party.  The  same was received by opposite party on 10.1.2007 and Ex.A1 evidences that opposite party sanctioned  pension from  10.1.2007  onwards. Ex.A2 is the request of the complainant  to the opposite party  that pension should be settled from 1.5.2006 instead of 10.1.2007 . Ex.A4 is the letter dt. 18.4.2007 in which the opposite party has stated as follows:

“The date of entitlement of pension would be taken into consideration  from the date of submission of  the Form 10-D in the office  and not from the date of retirement from service.

The date of submission of Form 10-D in this office is 10.1.2007 and hence the date of entitlement of pension is taken as 10.1.2007.”

The complainant in support of  his case submitted the pension order of B.Malla Reddy Exs.A5 to A8 which show the said V.Malla Reddy retired  on 31.5.2003 but applied for sanction of pension with a delay of 2 years 2 months but the opposite party granted the pension from 1.6.2003 without any objection.  The District Forum observed that the opposite party did not apply the same yardstick to the complainant herein and directed the appellant/opp.party to sanction the complainant’s  pension from 1.5.2006 instead of 10.1.2007. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the circumstances of the said V.Malla Reddy’s case is totally different  and that the original date of birth of the complainant as per the complainant’s declaration  is 25 years as on 1.2.1976,  on retirement the complainant is claiming that he superannuated on attaining the age 58 years as on 30.4.2006.  

The appellant did not place before us the provisions of the Act which indicates that the pension could be sanctioned only from the date  of receipt of Form 10-D instead of from the date of retirement.  It is the  contention of the appellant that the present employer did not submit Form-5 or Form 2® hence the date of birth of the  member was taken from annexure K (prescribed proforma under the EPF scheme) which contains from the other facts the date of birth of the member received from AP-2774/126   i.e.  the PF Code where the member worked.  Once the date of birth is received through form 5 form 2®, and Form-9, the date of birth was not allowed to be changed except on technical grounds.  As the office records show that the member did not attain superannuation age i.e. 58 years as on the date of submission of claim form they did not call for the reasons for the delay in submission of the claim form. Form 2® is the Return which was submitted by the employer or the member while the member in service. The request for change in date of birth after retirement of the member is generally  not accepted  and in the instant case since Form 5 is not submitted by the employer and Form 2® of the member was also not received, the date of birth was taken as per the transfer proceeds  received from the office where the member worked.  The respondent/complainant submits in his written arguments that his F-5 particulars were never called for.  The learned counsel for the appellant did not place before  us the rules which show that pension will be sanctioned only from the date of the receipt of Form 10-D  since F5 particulars or Form 2® particulars were not received by the appellant herein in support of  his contention that the pension was fixed rightly from the date of receipt of Form 10-D.  In the absence  of any rule position  contrary  to this, put forward before this commission in support of their contention, we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.

In the result  this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

                                                                                       Sd./PRESIDENT

                                                                                       Sd./MEMBER

                                                                                       Dt.14.10.2010