Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/1/2019

B.Narasimha Reddy, 62 years, S/o Late B.Konda Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant P.F. Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

In person

12 Jun 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 12.12.2018

Order Date:12.06.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

 

C.C.No.01/2019

 

 

Between

 

 

B.Narasimha Reddy,

Aged about 62 years,

S/o. late. B.Konda Reddy,

D.No.23-375/5, Santhi Nagar,

Kongareddypalli,

Chittoor Town and District.                                                … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         The Assistant P.F. Commissioner,

            Railway Station Road,

            Yerramukkala Palli,

            Kadapa.

 

2.         The Enforcement Officer,

            District P.F. Office,

            2^nd Floor, Sridevi Complex,

            Tilak Road,

            Tirupati.                                                                     …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 06.06.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Narasimha Reddy, party-in-person for complainant, and opposite parties remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            Complaint allegations are as follows – Complainant worked as Sales Officer in Marketing Department, Nutrine Confectionery Company Ltd., Chittoor, during the period from November 1982 to December 2008. He paid EPF premium while in service to the opposite party organization @ 12% from his monthly salary. The Central Government introduced Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme on 06.11.1995 to all the employees, who are covered under EPF scheme. The employer contribution is 12% and the employee contribution is 12%, but earlier only 3.67% contribution of employer was credited to employee provident fund account. The complainant got eligibility for EPF pension scheme and he is getting pension from January 2009 through 1^st opposite party vide proceedings No.MPPO No.AP/1269/2283 and PPO No.AP/CDP/28757. He is paid Rs.1,399/- per month towards pension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court gave verdict to increase minimum pension of Rs.8,500/- under EPF scheme  and maximum Rs.28,500/- per month based on the employee service and basic salary. The complainant submitted application to opposite party No.1 by way of regd. post on 09.07.2018 requesting to arrange to give new pension at enhanced rate. Having received the letter from complainant on 10.07.2018, opposite party No.1 did not respond till 19.08.2018. The complainant addressed second letter dt:20.08.2018 to 1^st opposite party by regd. post. A copy of the letter was also sent to 2^nd opposite party. Opposite party No.1 received the letter on 21.08.2018. The complainant again addressed letter to 2^nd opposite party on 27.10.2018 by regd. post making the same request and asked to comply the demand on or before 05.11.2018. The amounts collected under EPF pension schemes are lying with opposite parties. The complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act 1986. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2000 CTJ 1 in the case between Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiva Kumar Joshi, held that member of the EPF scheme is a consumer, and as there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, he filed the complaint seeking direction to opposite parties, to confirm on the EPF new pension eligibility and to pay Rs.7,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

            2.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 were set exparte on 01.02.2019, as they failed to appear before the Forum.

3.  Written arguments filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A7 are marked.

4.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            5. Point:-  Ex.A1 is photocopy of complainant letter dt:09.07.2018 with original postal receipt and served acknowledgement due. Ex.A2 is photocopy of complainant letter dt:20.08.2018 with original postal receipt and served acknowledgement due. Ex.A3 is true copy of complainant letter dt:27.10.018 with original postal receipt and served acknowledgement due. Ex.A4 is memo filed by the complainant, as document along with attested photocopy of pension sanctioned letter, PPO prepared on 13.03.2009. Ex.A5 is photocopy of Employees Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi, Circular No.2896 dt:08.06.2018, regarding delay in implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court order on payment of pension on higher wages. Ex.A6 is original copy of 1^st opposite party letter dt:01.04.2019 regarding refund of pension contribution along with interest for revision / enhancement of pension under EPS’95 on the basis of contribution remitted on actual / full wages. Ex.A7 is self attested photocopy of complainant letter dt:12.04.2019 with original postal receipt dt:12.04.2019.

            6.  Along with the written arguments, complainant has submitted the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.10013-10014 of 2016 between R.C.Gupta and Ors. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Ors., in support of his contention that he is entitled for enhancement of pension under EPS-95 Pension Scheme. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment held as follows – “we do not see how exercise of option under paragraph.26 of the Provident Fund Scheme can be construed to estop the employees from exercising a similar option under paragraph.11(3). If both the employer and the employee opt for deposit against the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, exercise of option under paragraph.26 of the provident scheme is inevitable. Exercise of the option under paragraph-26(6) is a necessary precursor to the exercise of option under Clause-11(3). Exercise of such option, therefore, would not foreclose the exercise of a further option under Clause-11(3) of the pension scheme unless the circumstances warranting such foreclosure are clearly indicated. The above apart in a situation where the deposit of the employer’s share at 12% has been on the actual salary and not the ceiling amount, we do not see how the Provident Fund Commissioner could have been aggrieved to file the L.P.A. before the Division Bench of the High Court. All that the Provident Fund Commissioner is required to do in the case is an adjustment of accounts which in turn would have benefitted some of the employees. At best what the Provident Commissioner could do and which we permit him to do under the present order is to seek a return of all such amounts that the concerned employees may have taken or withdrawn from their provident fund account before granting them the benefit of the proviso of Clause-11(3) of the Pension Scheme. Once such a return is made in whichever cases such return is due, consequential benefits in terms of this order will be granted to the said employees”. A table is also enclosed along with the Supreme Court judgment showing the calculation of pension of employees covered under EPS-95 scheme. As per Ex.A6, complainant was asked to refund Rs.811/- to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner towards differential pension contribution together with interest accrued till end of April 2019 for revision of pension on higher wages. The complainant also complied the same.

            7.  As per the complaint, the complainant is seeking direction to the opposite parties, to confirm his eligibility regarding EPF new pension scheme. It is represented that already an application is moved by complainant and the same is pending with opposite parties 1 and 2 without passing any order. As already stated by us, opposite parties remained exparte. Since the complainant made contribution to EPF shceme, he is a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act 1986. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that opposite parties are directed to dispose of the application filed by the complainant with regard to new pension scheme. Accordingly, this complaint is allowed.

            8.  In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties, to dispose of the representation moved by the complainant along with necessary proforma, within one month from the date of this order.         

 

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 12^th day of June, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                         

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: B. Narasimha Reddy (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of the Complainant Letter Dt: 09.07.2018 with original Postal Receipt and Served Ack. Due.
	Photo copy of the Complainant Letter Dt: 20.08.2018 with original Postal Receipt and Served Ack. Due.
	True copy of the Complainant Letter Dt: 27.10.2018 with original Postal Receipt and Served Ack. Due.
	Memo filed by the Complainant as Document along with attested photo copy of Pension Sanctioned Letter, PPO prepared on Dt: 13.03.2009. Dt: 18.03.2009.
	Photo copy of Employees Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi - Circular No. 2896, Dt: 08.06.2018 regarding “Delay in Implementation of Hon’ble Supreme Court Order on Payment of Pension on Higher Wages”.
	Original copy of 1st Opposite Party Letter Dt: 01.04.2019 regarding “ Refund of pension contribution alongwith interest for revision/enhancement of pension under EPS’95 on the basis of contribution remitted on actual /full wages (being more than the wages ceiling amount)”.
	Self attested photo copy of Complainant Letter Dt: 12.04.2019 with original Postal Receipt. Dt: 12.04.2019.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

                                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

 

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

     

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.