ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. This complaint is filed by the complainant for getting pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 and other reliefs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant was a cashew worker with effect from 1964. She retired from service on superannuation on 12.10.1996 after completion of 32 years of continuous service. On attaining 58 years. The complainant joint the scheme as per PF Act 1952 vide No.KR-1237/220. She became the member of Family Pension Scheme 1971. The 2nd opp.party admitted this complainant in the EPS.1995. So she applied for the eligible pension in Form No.10D to the first opp.party duly certified and signed by the 2nd opp.party. The complainant is eligible to get the pension of Rs.800/- under the EPS 1995. The complainant got an information from the 1st opp.party denying the pension infavour of the complainant The complainant is eligible to get the prescribed pension from the 1st opp.party as per law. Hence filed this complaint for getting pension as per law. 1st opp.party filed a version contending interalaia, that the complainant is out of the ambit of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 since she was not a Family Pension Fund member or member of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995. Further her Employees Provident Fund Account stands settled on 4.3.1997, and therefore ceased membership five years back. The complaint is barred by period of limitation as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant did not contribute to the Family Pension Scheme 1971 or EPS 1995. The complaint would have exercised option to join the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and Employees Pension Scheme 1995 during the period of her membership in Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme – 1952, by invoking the enabling provision under para 2 [2E] of Employees’ Family Pension Scheme 1971 and 6 [d] of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The complaint being a non-Family Pension Fund/Employees Pension Fund member ceased membership in Employees Pension Scheme 1952 is not eligible for re-option after settlement as per Para 7 of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Therefore the rejection is strictly in conformity with the Scheme only Hence the 1st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complainant is eligible to get the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995. 2. Whether There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 and P1[a] are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext/D1 to D3 are marked. Points 1 to 3 The case of the complainant is that she retired from service on 12.10.1996. She is eligible to get pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 as the pension scheme stands came into effect on 16.11.1995. The opp.party 1 contended that as the complainant was not a family pension fund member or member of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, she is lnot eligible to get pension. The matter to be decided is whether the complainant is within the scheme of the EPS 1995. According to the 1st opp.party the complainant was not a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The complainant did not contribute to the Family Pension Scheme 1971 or Employees Pension Scheme 1995. On verification of Exts. D1 D2 and D3 it is seen that the complainant did not contribute to the Family Pension Scheme 1971 and she had settled her Employees Provident Fund Account on 4.3.1997. Thereby the complainant is barred by period of limitation as under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. As per para 7 of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, as the complainant being a non-Family Pension Fund/Employees Pension Fund member ceased membership in Employees Pension Scheme 1952 is not eligible for re-option after settlement of PF account. From the whole evidences, we are of the view that the complaint is not entitled to get pension. The rejection of her pension application by the 1st opp.party is legal. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. The complainant is entitled to not relief. In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed without costs. Dated this the 31ST day of January, 2009. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Mariyamma List of documents for the complainant P1. – 1o-D P1[a]- Informations List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – K.P. Balagopalan Nair List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Contribution cards D2. – Form No.2 Nomination D3. – Letter dated 14.3.2002 | 
