<br /> <br /> By SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> This is a complaint seeking enhancement of pensionary benefits.<br /> <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant joined with the 2nd opp.party as a worker on 23.05.1974 and retired from service on superannuation on 1.7.2002 after completion of 28 years continuance service on attaining the age of 58 years. The complainant was a member of Provident Fund Organization vide PF No.KR/1491-A/1007. The 2nd opp.party deducted the complainant’s contribution to the PF from her salary and remitted with the first opp.party . The complainant was a member of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 including Family Pension Scheme. The 2nd opp.party deducted the contribution of Employees Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund from the complainant’s salary and remitted with the employers share. As per the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and the complainant order with the 2nd opp.party , the 2nd opp.party issued notice of termination at the age of 58 years and the complainant is terminated from service on 1.7.2002. The complainant applied for the eligible pension in Form No.10D . The complainant is eligible to get PF pension under EPS 1995. There is no break in service . The complainant got an order from the 1st opp.party on 11.2.2003 revealing that she is eligible for a pension of Rs.325/- and a monthly pension of Rs.184/- after deducting the commutation. This order of the first opp.party is quite, illegal and against the facts and actual eligibility. The complainant has 28 years of service with the opp.party. She was a member in the Family Pension Scheme 1971 from the beginning and became a member of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The complainant has 21 years past service and 7 years service under the Pension Scheme 1995. The 2nd opp.party deducted the entire amount as contribution as envisaged in the scheme The complainant is entitled to get the minimum pension of Rs.800/- per month considering the service. The other numbers who retired with the complainant and having the same joining and retirement date are getting full pension . The reduced pension awarded to the complainant is due to the negligent act of the opp.party. The complainant is eligible to get the prescribed pension from the 1st opp.party as per law. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> The 1st opp.party filed version stating that the complainant has joined the Employees Provident Fund Scheme on 17.12.1974 with Employees Provident Fund Account No. KR/ 1491-A/1007 and she retired on 1.7.2002 on completion of 58 years of age. The complainant was brought under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 with effect from 16.11.1995. The complainant’s application for pension has been processed strictly in accordance with the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 only. The complainant is though having a past service of 17 years upto 15.11.1995 she has contributed to the pension fund only for 4 years. As per para 9 of Employees Pension Scheme only the period for which the pension contributions are received shall be counted as eligible pensionable service. As per the statements issued by the employer only the non-contributory period of break in service is arrived by diverting Rs.15135/- from her Provident Fund account 9 years 7 months and 15 days of non contributory period of her service has been converted into contributory period of pensionable service. Due to shortage of amount in the EPF account all the remaining period of break in the past service prior to 16.11.1995 could not be regularized. The contributory past service finally worked out is 11 years only. The complainant ‘s date of leaving service is 1.7.2002, hence her pension has been calculated as provided in para 12 [4] read with Government of India letter No.R.,15025/01/99-SS II dated 10.5.1999 and letter No. Pension-I/7[2]/98/CEPS/Vol dated 18.6.99. The actual service of the complainant from 16.11.1995 to 1.7.2002 is 6 years 7 months and 15 days out of which there is a non contributory period of 5 years and 26 days. After deducting this non-contributory period the net contributory period from 16.11.1995 to 1.7.2002 is 1 year 6 months 19 days which is rounded of to 2 years Thus the total eligible pensionable service of the complainant that is both past service +pensionable service is 11+2 =13 years only. This is strictly in conformity with para 9 [a] 9 [b] and 10 of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The copy of worksheet calculating the period is produced. The allegation of the complainant is totally incorrect and unsustainable. The complainant as per the rule is eligible for original monthly pension of Rs.325/- per month with effect from 1.7.2002. She had opted for commutation benefit for which she had surrendered 1/3 of pension amounting to Rs.108/- to get Rs.10800/- leaving the pension to Rs.217/- per month. Out of this she further opted for the R.O.C by giving consent to receive 90% of the remaining pension in accordance with the para 13 [1] of the EPS 1995 to get an amount of Rs.21700/- by her nominee after her death. The remaining of sum Rs.184/- is regularly paid . There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an enhancement in the pensionary benefit under the 1995 Scheme ?.<br /> 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.<br /> 3. Reliefs and costs. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points:<br /> <br /> The complainant’s case is that she joined service on 17.12.74 and retired on 1.7.2002 on attaining 58 years of age after completing 28 years service and therefore, she is eligible to get a pension of Rs.800/- . But the opp.party 1 allowed her a pension of Rs.325/- despite the fact that she had 28 years service without any break in service. According to her employees having same period of service are getting higher pension than her and the reduced pension granted to her is due to the negligence on the part of the opp.parties.<br /> <br /> According to the 1st opp.party though the complainant would claim that she had no break in service Ext. D1 statement furnished by the employer shows that there is break in service in her past service as well as actual service. It is the case of the opp.party 1 that though the complainant had 17 years past service, she contributed to the pension Fund only for 4 years. Similarly in her actual service though the period from 16.11.95 to 1.7.2002 would come to about 7 years, the contributory period is only 2 years. By diverting Rs.15135/- from her provident fund accumulation non-contributory period of 10 years have been converted into contributory period and remaining period in past service could not be converted as there was shortage of amount and thus the eligibleable pension service of the complainant was arrived at 13 years for which eligible monthly pension of Rs.325/- per month was sanctioned..<br /> <br /> The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the original documents relating to the complainant were not produced by opp.party 1 and Ext. D1 document produced by opp.party 1 is a photocopy which cannot be accepted. It is true that Ext. D1 is a photocopy attested by Opp.party 1. In fact the original was produced before the Forum and got verified with D1 in the office. The complainant has not produced any material to show that there was no break in her service. PW.1 has no case that opp.party 2 has any enmity towards her for furnishing a false statement. Ext. P1 is the receipt for remittance of PF amount during 1989-90 and P2 is the receipt for remittance of PF amount during 2001-02. No receipts for having remitted PF contribution during other periods have been produced . If such amounts have actually been collected from her salary by the employer there is no reason why those records from opp.party 2 has not been called for by the complainant from which an adverse inference has to be drawn. It is not the actual period of service which counts but the period of actual service rendered by a member for which the contribution to the Fund has been received or receivable.<br /> <br /> <br /> No mistake in calculation of pension has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for complainant. Mere assertion that opp.party 2 has deducted the entire amount as contribution is not sufficient. It must be supported by cogent materials which are significantly absent. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence we are of the view that the complainant failed to establish that she is eligible for enhanced pension. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party as alleged. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> Pw.1. Fathumma<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Copy of ESI Card<br /> P2. – Attendance card<br /> P3. – PF remittance 89-90<br /> P4. – Form No.23<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – Vijayamohanan Pillai<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. – Certificate of Break in Service<br /> D2. – Letter dated 10.5.1999.<br /> D3. - Letter sent by 1st opp.party dated 18.6.99<br /> D4. – Computation of Pension [Part – B]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />