1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he joined as Lecturer in Jeypore Law College on 01.07.1992 and was allowed to work up to completion of 60 years of age and as such retired on superannuation w.e.f. 31.07.2013.  It is submitted that the College adopted EPS’95 in the year, 2002 and the complainant was allotted with EPF A/c. No. OR/10087/3 w.e.f. 01.5.2002 and accordingly 12% employer’s share and another 12% employee’s share were deposited with OP.1 from the period 01.05.2002 to 31.07.2013.  It is further submitted that he attained the age of 58 years by 22.07.2011 and as per Para-6A of EPS’95 he was not allowed to continue further as a member of EPF and was treated as superannuation w.e.f. 22.7.2011 whereas contributions were duly made up to 31.7.2013.  Thus the complainant is having legitimate right to get pension from 23.7.2011 but both the Ops are not taking any interest in spite of repeated approach by the complainant for sanction monthly pension in favour of the complainant till date.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to sanction monthly pension w.e.f. 23.7.2011 @ Rs.836/- per month and @ Rs.1000/- p.m. from 01.09.2014 and to pay arrear dues besides Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter admitting the complainant as a member of EPF Scheme w.e.f. 01.05.2002 and as per provisions contained under Para 6A of EPS’95 the membership under EPS’95 ceases on attaining the age of 58 years and a member becomes eligible for pension under EPS only after rendering 10 years of minimum contributory services.  It is further contended that the complainant attained 58 years of age as on 22.07.2011 while rendering 09 years 02 months 21 days of contributory service under EPS’95 scheme and hence the complainant is not eligible for pension.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 also filed counter contending that the complainant joined in the College on 01.7.1992 and retired on superannuation w.e.f. 31.7.2013.  It is further contended that as per Para-6A of EPS’95, a minimum 10 years contributory service is required to be eligible for getting pension but the complainant attained the age of 58 years on 22.07.2011 and by then he had not completed 10 years contributory service to be eligible for pension.  Thus denying any deficiency on service on its part the OP.2 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  The OP No.2 also filed certain documents.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case enrollment of the complainant under EPS’95 w.e.f. 01.05.2002 vides A/c No. OR/10087/3 is and attaining the age of 58 years w.e.f. 22.7.2011 are all admitted facts.  The case of the complainant is that he is eligible for monthly member’s pension w.e.f. 23.7.2011 but the Ops are not interested to sanction PPO in his favour.

6.                     The Ops stated that the complainant entered into the scheme w.e.f. 01.5.2002 and attained 58 years of age as on 22.7.2011 while rendering 09 years 02 months 21 days of contributory service under EPS’95 scheme and as he has not completed 10 years of contributory service, he is not eligible for pension whereas eligible for withdrawal benefits under EPS’95 scheme.

7.                     The complainant has furnished PPO papers of some employees under EPS’95 who retired during the year 2002 but they have been given pension by OP.1 under EPS.  In order to clarify the said issue, the A/R for the OP.1 has furnished some papers relating to grant of pension in favour of some employees.  He clarified that those employees who were already under EPF and FPF Scheme-1952, they are eligible for pension because already they were enrolled under Family Pension Scheme with due contribution and considering their past service, pension has been granted in their favour but in this case, the complainant was enrolled under EPS’95 w.e.f. 01.05.2002 rendering only 09 years, 02 months 21 days of contributory service.  The A/R for the OP.1 further clarified that, had the complainant rendered nine and half years of contributory service, he would have been eligible for the pension taking the nine and half years as ten years of contributory service.  The OP.1 has also cited some illustrations in support of his case.

8.                     From the above facts it was ascertained that the complainant has entered into EPS’95 on 01.05.2002 and has not completed 10 years of contributory service.  As per Para 6A of EPS’95 a member becomes eligible for pension only after rendering of 10 years of minimum contributory service.  Since the complainant has not completed 10 years of contributory service, he is not eligible for pension as per law but for withdrawal of benefits under EPS’95 Scheme.

9.                     In the above premises, we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)