BEFORE THE  DIST.CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.

DATE: 19^th May 2015. 

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi      : Member

1. Complaint No.: 29/2015
2. Complaint No.: 30/2015
3. Complaint No.: 31/2015
4. Complaint No.: 32/2015 
5. Complaint No.: 33/2015 
6. Complaint No.: 34/2015
7. Complaint No.: 35/2015
8. Complaint No.: 36/2015
9. Complaint No.: 37/2015 

                   10. Complaint No.: 38/2015 

                 11. Complaint No.: 39/2015 

             12. Complaint No.: 40/2015 

                  13. Complaint No.: 41/2015 

                  14. Complaint No.: 42/2015 

                  15. Complaint No.: 43/2015 

                  16. Complaint No.: 44/2015 

                  17. Complaint No.: 45/2015 

                  18. Complaint No.: 46/2015

                 19. Complaint No.: 47/2015

Complainant/s:      

Ganesh s/o Siddaramappa Araksali

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o. At and post:Amaragole,

Tq:Hubli,Dist:Dharwad

In CC/29/2015

Srikant  s/o.Panduranga Balekundri

Age:62 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o.C/o: Urankar Building, Samarth   

Nagar, 4^th Cross, Shivaji nagar Post,

Dist:Belagavi-590016.

In CC/30/2015

        Pandurangasa.s/o.NagappaKhiroji,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o.Gavi Oni,Kariyammannagudi Back side, Hanumasagar Chawl,Hubli.

In CC/31/2015

Shivaji s/o.Hanumanthrao Khaire,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired’,

R/o. Kamalapur,Kamati oni,

Dist:Dharwad

In CC/32/2015

    Raghupathi.s/o.Ramakrinshacharya

    Udapi, Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired,

    R/o:28/2,Rajeshwari,No.4,Malamaddi,

    Dist: Dharwad-580007

In CC/33/2015

Virupaxi s/o.Shivamurty Majagi,

Age: 67 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o.MattiPlot.No-15,Near APMC,Mahanth.Nagar,Behind Murughamath,Dist:Dharwad

In CC/34/2015

    Vishnappa s/o.Rajappa Mane,

Age: 66 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o. Janatha PlotNo.77,Michigan Compound,Dist:Dharwad-580006.

In CC/35/2015

Shahidhar s/o.Andaneppa 

Holeyannavar,

Age: 73 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o. Gurushivanand Nilaya,B/H P& T quarters,Masari Extension,Dist: Gadag.

.

In CC/36/2015

Vilas s/o Devaputrappa Bagalkoti,

Age: 67 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o. Basel Mission Church,Mission compound, Karwar Road, Hubli-20

In CC/37/2015

Lakshmappa s/o.Basappa,

Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o.Markanur,Tq:Ranebennur,

Dist:Haveri.

In CC/38/2015

Sanganagouda s/o.Basanagouda Patil,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o. C/o.KCC Bank Ltd,Tq:Ron,Dist:Gadag.

In CC/39/2015

Rudragouda s/o.Muttanagouda

Hededmani

Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o.Hunashikatti, Post:Jagapur,

Tq:Naragund,Dist:Gadag

In CC/40/2015

Shivanagouda S/o.Huchhanagouda 

Lingangouder,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o.Abhigeri,Tq:Ron,Dist:Gadag.

In CC/41/2015

Madivalappa S/o.Rudrappa Bulla

Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired,

 R/o.MIG-1/127,Siddaling Nagar,HUDCO Colony,Dist:Gadag

In CC/42/2015

Chandrashekar S/o.Virupakshappa

Myageri,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o.Basavaprema Nilaya,Vivekanand Nilaya,Vivekanand Nagar,Dist:Gadag.

In CC/43/2015

Shivaputrappa S/o.Yallapa,

Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired,

 R/o.B/H Nandishwarmath,K.C.Rani Road, Masari,Dist:Gadag.

In CC/44/2015

Channabasappa S/o.Basavaneppa

Yarageri,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o.Nr.Basaveshwar Temple,Amingad,Tq:Hunagund,

Dist:Bagalkot.

In CC/45/2015

Shashidhar S/o.Ramappa Neeralagi,

Age: 64 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o. RS No.323(c),Plot No.23,Amareshwar Nagar,Gangimadi Road,Dist:Gadag.

In CC/46/2015

Rajesab S/o.Maktumsab Tahsildar,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired,

R/o.Kudihal,Tq:Kundgol,Dist:Dharwad

In CC/47/2015

 (By Smt.G.Geetabai, Adv.)

                                             -Vs-

RESPONDENT/s     :      

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Block No.10, Behind Income Tax Office, Navanagar, Hubli 580025.

(In person)

O R D E R

By: Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi: Member

1. All these eighteen complaints are of same nature and in all the cases respondent is the same, as such to avoid multiplication of repeating the judgment, proceeded to pass a common order.
2. The complainants have filed these complaints against the respondent for deficiency in service on the part of respondent. Hence direction to the respondent to revise the monthly pension by extending minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service w.e.f. date of retirement of the complainants and by extending the weightage of 2 years and to pay the arrears with interest @18% P.A. along with Rs.10,000/- cost of the proceedings and Rs.20,000/-compensation for mental agony and other reliefs.
3. Complainants joined service in Mysore Kirloskar Pvt Ltd, Gokul Road, Hubli, and Karnataka Central Co Operative Bank Ltd Dharwad and Hangal Branch Dist Haveri in different posts respectively .  The respondent is the pension paying authority which has to fix the pension of all the retired employees who had joined the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, during their service complainants were members of Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971. Since the date of joining the duty and subsequently the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 was introduced & earlier employees family pension scheme was closed, as such complainants became members of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 since 15/11/1995 and they claim to have paid contribution as per the stipulations laid down in both the schemes till they retired, as such complainants are entitled to pension from the date of retirement. After retirement of the complainants, the respondent has fixed pension of the complainants which is mentioned in their PPO but the respondent has not taken into account the entire period of service rendered by them in calculating the pension correctly. Their past service is not considered, even weightage of 2 years is not given to them though they have served for more than 20 years, as such the pension amount of complainants has to be fixed according to the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 & weightage of 2 years is also to be given apart from paying arrears of pension till the date and they are also entitled to interest on the arrears of amount apart from cost of the litigation and compensation.
4. In the written version the respondent has contended that the complainants were enrolled as members under the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and thereafter become the member of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 till they retired. Subsequently the complainants have claimed pension through application in form 10D, on receipt of the same respondent office has issued pension payment orders by sanctioning pension per month to the complainants. Aggrieved by such fixation of pension now the complainants have requested the respondent to revise the pension. The members who superannuate on attaining age of 58 years and who have rendered 20 years pensionable service or more than their pensionable service shall be increased by adding weightage of 2 years. If the period of service is less than 20 years weightage of 2 years cannot be given, the weightage is due to be given only in the year (November) 2015. The respondent has calculated the pension of complainants in accordance with the scheme and it does not call for any re-fixation or revision. The respondent further contended that the rate of contribution for both the scheme are different, benefit for the scheme cannot be equated to same. Respondent Further contented that if the intention of the legislation was to considered entire service that is past service and pensionable service for the purpose of giving weightage 2 years as per para 10(2) of EPS 1995 then it would not have defined the past service and also given past service pension as per para 12(3) (b), 12(4)(b) and 12(5)(b) as the case may be . Hence it clearly shows that the entire service cannot be clubbed for the purpose of giving weightage of 2 years as per para10(2) EPS 1995. Further contended that Employees Provident Funds and misc provisions that 1952 is a social security scheme enacted by an act of parliament and any amendments made and published in the Gazette of India are justifiable. Accordingly amendment to Section 10(2) of the EPS was made wide GSR 594 dated 23/07/2009 (WEF 24/07/2009). Similarly para 12(EPS 1995 was also amended vide GSR 431(E) dated 15/06/2007(deemed to have come into force from the date from which the EPS 1995 came in to force 16/11/1995. In the light of above amendments the respondent has fixed the pension of the applicants it is correct.   The Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act 1952 is a social security legislation meant to provide benefits to the employees to the maximum extent. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and since it has calculated monthly pension in accordance with the scheme, so complaints are liable to be dismissed with cost. Further contended that complaints are barred by limitation.
5. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1.Whether complainants have proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent ?

2. Whether complainants are entitled to the relief as claimed ?

3.To what relief the complainants are entitled ?

Sworn to affidavit of complainants and respondent are filed apart from producing documents and citations. Written argument of complainants and respondent are filed and also argued orally. 

Finding on points is as under:

1. In Affirmative 
2. In Affirmative but accordingly 
3. As per order.

  Reasons

Points 1 and 2

Details of Service rendered by the Complainants are as below

6. On perusal of the documents that, the complainants were members of Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 from the date of joining their service. Subsequently Employees Pension Scheme 1995 was introduced and the earlier Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 came to be merged in Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The members of Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 continued their membership even under Employees Pension Scheme 1995. These facts are not in much dispute.
7. The grievance of the complainants is that, while fixing their pension the respondent has not considered their past service and present service and 2 years weightage is not given. On that ground they have sought for re-fixation of their pension apart from arrears of pension amount, interest, cost of the litigation & compensation.
8. Complainants have produced correspondence letters with the respondent, even after that their monthly pension has not been fixed as claimed by them.
9. The method of calculation for fixing the pension shall be computed in accordance with the following factors, viz.,

Monthly members pension = pensionable salary x pensionable service

70

 Some definitions are thus:

10. “Actual Service” means, the aggregate of period of service rendered from the 16/11/1995 or from the date of joining any establishment whichever is later to the date of exit from the employment of the establishment covered under the Act.
11. “Past Service” means, the period of service rendered by an existing member from the date of joining Employees Family Pension Fund till the 15/11/1995.
12. “Pensionable Service” means, the service rendered by the member for which contributions have been received or are receivable.
13. Rule 9 determination of eligible service, Rule 9 (B) in the case of “existing member” the aggregate of actual service and the “past service” shall be treated as eligible service.
14. Rule 10 (2) in the case of a member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and / or who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by a weightage of 2 years.
15. It was argued for the respondent that, as per 10 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 a member who superannuates on the age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more his pensionable service shall be increased by adding weightage of 2 years. One more contention taken by the respondent is that, for calculation of pension, the period of service will be considered only w.e.f. 16/11/1995, as such the complainants have not completed 20 years of pensionable service, as such weightage of 2 years is not given and their previous service cannot be considered in fixing the pension amount. Another contention is that rate of contribution for the both the schemes are different. And amendment of para10 (2) and para 12 deemed to have came in to force on 16/11/1995. In the light of above amendments the respondents as fixed the pension of the complainants .
16. On perusal of the documents all these cases, complainants were members of Employee Family Pension Scheme 1971 and Employee Pension Scheme 1995.
17. The net assets of the Family Pension Scheme 1971 shall vest in and stand transferred to the Employees Pension Fund, it means that the asset of FPS 1971 stood vested and transferred to the EP Fund 1995. The complainants have contributed to the EPF 1971 scheme since the aforesaid amount got transferred to EPF 1995 Scheme. The complainants have contributed from joined the service to till retirement. Hence past service and actual service both considered in fixing the pension amount as per the scheme.
18. Earlier to the amendment the para.10(2) of the EPS 1995 reads as follows:

“Rule 10 (2) in the case of a member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and / or who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by a weightage of 2 years”

19. After amendment which is expressly stand with effect from 24.07.2009 para 10(2) of the 1995 scheme reads as follows:-

“Rule 10 (2) in the case of a member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and  who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by a weightage of 2 years”

20. In these two paras difference was earlier to amended para 10(2) is stated that a member to get weightage of 2 years it was sufficient if he has either superannuate after the age of 58 years or he has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more. It means a member one condition fulfilled he entitled 2 years weightage. But after amended scheme stated that, a member compulsorily he attained 58 years and he rendered more than 20 years of pensionable service both conditions are fulfilled then only he entitle to 2 years weightage.
21. Compt no 13/15 to 24/15 and 70/15 to 75/15 in all these cases complainants are rendered more than 20years of eligible service, but at the time of retirement they are not attained 58 years except Compt no 19/15, 20/15, 24/15, 72/15, 74/15 and 75/15. But date of retirement and date of commence of pension of complainants considered they are retired from service prior to the amendment of para 10(2) dated 24/07/2009. Hence in all these cases before amended para10(2) is applicable. Para10(2) is amended on 24/07/2009. Hence before amended para10(2) is considered all the complainants entitled to 2 years weightage. Because they have rendered more than 20years of eligible service
22. Compt no 19/15 , 20/15, 24/15, 72/15 ,74/15 and 75/15 in these cases complainants are fulfilled both aspects i.e they were rendered more than 20 years of eligible service and they are attained 58 years at the time of retirement.
23. In.Compt.No13/15, 14/15, 15/15, 16/15, 17/15, 18/15, 21/15, 22/15, 23/15, 70/15, 71/15 and 73/15 in these cases complainants were retired from service before 58 years. Hence as per para 12(7) of EPS 1995. The pension amount shall be reduced @ 3% for every year, the age falls short of 58 years. Because para12(7) says that “ A member if he so desires , may be allowed to draw a monthly reduced pension from a date earlier than 58 years of age, but not earlier than 50 years of  age. In such cases, the amount of pension shall be reduced at that rate of 3% for every year the age falls short of 58 years.
24. The.Compt.No13/15, 18/15, 20/15, 21/15, 72/15, 73/15, 74/15 and 75/15 in these cases complainants are rendered past service was 24 years.
25. In Compt no 13/15: The respondent calculated pension amount of Rs 335 and past service benefit calculated Rs 316 as per table B Factor. But complainant claimed pension amount of Rs 438 as per para 12(4) A and past service benefit clamed Rs 600. Because he rendered past service was 24 years, hence he is entitled to past service benefit of Rs 600 pm and pension amount of Rs 438 as per para 12(4) A. Because scheme is given option whichever is more complainant is entitled.
26. In Compt No 14/15: The respondent calculated pension amount of Rs 335 and past service benefit calculated Rs 382 as per table B Factor. But complainant claimed pension amount of Rs 438 as per para 12(4) A and past service benefit claimed Rs 525 as per para 12(4) B. Because he rendered past service was 21 years, hence he is entitled to past service benefit of Rs 525 pm and pension amount of Rs 438 as per para 12(4) A.
27. In Compt no 15/15: The respondent and complainant calculated past service benefit is same, hence no dispute. Only pension amount is disputed. The respondent calculated pension amount Rs 352 minimum of Rs 438. But complainant claimed Rs 635 as per para 12(3)A. Which ever is more complainant is entitled. Hence complainant is entitled Rs 635 as per para 12(3) A.
28. In Compt no 16/15: The respondent calculated pension amount of Rs 438 and past service benefit calculated Rs 901 as per table B Factor. But complainant claimed pension amount of Rs 635 as per para 12(3) A and past service benefit claimed Rs 745. Respondent calculated past service benefit Rs 901 is correct. Because less than 18 years Table B factor comes Rs 901.But complainant calculated less than 16 years. At time of 1995 age of complainant age 40 years. Hence less than 18 years is correct. Complainant is entitled to pension amount Rs 635 as per para 12(3) A and past service benefit Rs 901 pm.
29. In Compt no 17/15: In this case respondent and complainant calculated past service benefit same. Hence no dispute. Only pension amount is dispute. Respondent calculated Rs 438 as per para 12(4) B. But Complainant calculated Rs 635 as par para 12(3) A. On perusal of PPO pension sanctioned under para 12.3. But respondent mentioned in written version para 12(4) B. Respondent stated that amended para considered pension comes under  para 12(4) A. But complainant retired from service prior to amendment. Hence before amended scheme is applicable. Hence complainant is entitled to pension amount of Rs 635 PM. 
30. In Compt no 18/15: The respondent calculated pension amount of Rs 335 as per 12.3B and past service benefit calculated Rs 316 as per table B Factor. But complainant claimed pension amount of Rs 438 as per para 12(4) A and past service benefit clamed Rs 600. Because he rendered past service was 24 years, hence he is entitled to past service benefit of Rs 600 pm and pension amount of  Rs 438 as per para 12(4) A whichever is more complainant is entitled. PP o shows that at the time of retirement pension was sanctioned as per para 12.4. But respondent calculated para 12.3 is not proper.
31. In Compt no 19/15: The respondent calculated pension amount of Rs 714 and past service benefit calculated Rs 316 as per table B Factor. But complainant claimed pension amount of Rs 743 and past service benefit clamed Rs 550. Because he rendered past service was 22 years, hence he is entitled to past service benefit of Rs 550 pm. complainant claimed pension Rs 743 including 2 years weightage. The pension is sanctioned as per para 12.4. In this case complainant calculated pensionable salary was Rs 6500/- .  But respondent calculated 6250/- .Respondent paid 2 years weightage arrears amount of Rs: 26991/- from 12.5.2002 to 31/12/2014.  But the complainant produced one letter dtd. 7/11/2003 it shown that enhanced  of pension Rs:6500/- But the respondent calculated in written version Rs;6250/-.  Hence the complainant is entitle to remaining difference amount from respondent in weightage amount plus past service benefit.
32. In Complaint no: 20/2015: Pension Amount calculated by the respondent and complainant is same, hence no dispute. But disputed fact is past service benefit complainant calculated Rs:600/- as per Para 12 (4)(b)  Because he rendered  24 years of past service.  Respondent calculated Rs:420/- as per Table (B) factor.  Thereafter filling of the complaint respondent paid Rs:19873/- from 31/1/2005 to 31/12/2014 .  Hence question of 2 years weightage does not arise.  But the complainant is entitled past service benefit Rs:600/- as per Para 12(4)(b).  Hence past service benefit difference amount complainant is entitled.

33. In Complaint no: 21/2015:  The respondent calculated pension amount of Rs 557 and PSB of Rs 462. The complainant calculated Pension Amount of Rs:743/- and P.S.B Rs:800/- as per 12(3)(b) .  Because the complainant rendered past service was 24 years.  Hence the complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs:800/-.   The respondent calculated Pension amount Rs:557/- But after 2 years weightage considered complainant is entitled to pension amount Rs:743/-. 
34. In Comp.no.22/2014.:  In this case Complainant calculated pension amount of Rs 743/- and PSB benefit is Rs:550/- asper para 12(4)(b).  But the respondent calculated pension amount of Rs:546/-  and P.S.B. is Rs:347/-.  As per Table (B) factor.    In this case complainant pensionable salary was Rs:6500/-  But the respondent calculated in Written Version Rs:6375/-. But the complainant produced enhanced salary letter Rs:6500/-  Hence Complainant Pensionable Salary was Rs:6500/- In this case the complainant is entitled to two years weightage. Hence pension amount of Rs 743 and PSB Rs:550/- p.m. Asper Para 12(4)(b) because he rendered PSB was 22 years.
35. In Comp no: 23/2014: In this case the respondent and complainant calculated PSB benefit is same. Hence no dispute.  Only Pension amount is disputed.  Complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage but the complainant calculated pension as per Para 12(3)(a) Rs:635/-.  Hence, scheme is given option whichever is more complainant is entitle.
36. In Comp.no.24/2015:   Complainant claimed Pension amount Rs:1207/- and past service benefit Rs:509/- as per para 12(3)(c) .  Respondent & complainant calculated PSB is same, hence no dispute.  But in pension amount Respondent not calculated 2 years weightage amount.  But after filing of the complaint respondent paid 2 years weightage amount of Rs:16951/- from 27/4/2007 to 30/11/2014.  Hence No balance in claim of complainant.  Only the complainant is entitled to cost of proceeding of Rs:1000/- and compensation of Rs:1000/- from respondent. 
37. In Comp no: 70/2015 In this case Respondent calculated PSB Rs:509/- is correct .  Because respondent calculated less than 12 years comes Rs:509/-  But the complainant calculated Rs: 560/- it is less than 13 years is wrong. Because on 1995 age of complainant was 46. Hence less than 12 years is correct.  The complainant calculated pension amount Rs:635/- as per para 12(3)(a) .  But the respondent calculated Rs:335/-  But the scheme is given option to the members whichever is more complainant is entitle.  Hence the complainant is entitle to pension amount Of Rs:635/- as per para 12(3)(a).
38. In Comp.no: 71/2015:  Complainant and respondent calculated PSB is same, no dispute.  Only pension amount is dispute. But the complainant calculated pension amount Rs:635/- as per para 12(3)(a) .  But the respondent calculated Rs:335/-  But the scheme is given option to the members whichever is more complainant is entitle.  Hence the complainant is entitle to pension amount Of Rs:635/- as per para 12(3)(a).
39. In Comp no: 72/2014:  In this case no dispute of Pension Amount only disputed fact is PSB .  Complainant is claimed PSB Rs:500/- as per Para 12(5)(b) .  But the respondent calculated PSB Rs:261/- as per Table (B) factor.  But complainant is rendered PSB was 24 years.  Hence the complainant is entitle to Rs:500/-pm  as per para 12(5)(b).  In this case respondent has released Rs: 12921/- difference pension Arrears from 31/5/2000 to 28/2/2015.  Hence question of 2 years weightage does not arise.  But the complainant is entitled to PSB difference amount from respondent.
40. In Comp no .73/2015: The respondent calculated pension amount of Rs 335/- and past service benefit calculated Rs 347/- as per table B Factor. But complainant claimed pension amount of Rs Rs.438/- as per para 12(4) A and past service benefit clamed Rs 600. Because he rendered past service was 24 years,  hence he is entitled to past service benefit of Rs 600/- pm. complainant claimed pension of Rs 438 as per para 12(4) A, whichever is more complainant is entitled.
41. In CompNO.74/2015: The respondent and complainant calculated pension amount of Rs 335/- same no dispute. Only disputed fact is past service benefit. Complainant calculated past service benefit of Rs 500 as per para12.5.B. But respondent calculated Rs 261 as per table B Factor. In this case complainant is entitled to Rs 500 past service benefit. Because he rendered past service was 24 years, hence he is entitled to past service benefit of Rs 500/- pm.
42. In Comp no.75/2015: The respondent and complainant calculated pension amount of Rs 352/- same no dispute. Only disputed fact is past service benefit. Complainant calculated past service benefit of Rs 500 as per para12.5.B. But respondent calculated Rs 261 as per table B Factor. In this case complainant is entitled to Rs 500 past service benefit. Because he rendered past service was 24 years, hence he is entitled to past service benefit of Rs 500/- pm. There after filling if the complaint respondent has paid Rs 3258 difference of pension arrears from 01/01/2000 to 31/01/2015. Hence question of 2 years weightage does not arise. Only PSB deference amount complainant is entitled.
43. In all these cases respondent calculated amended scheme paras but PPO shows that different paras. The Complainants calculated pension amount as per PPO mentioned paras. But respondent calculated amended paras. But complainants are retired from service prior to amended scheme. Hence before amended scheme is applicable. In some cases respondent calculated past service benefit as per table B factors. But Complainant calculated as per para 12.3.B&C, 12.4.B,12.5.B. In some cases after considering 2 years weightage amount but complainant claimed as per para 12.3.A, 12.4.A and 12.5.A. Because scheme is provided whichever is more complainants are entitled.

44. The contention of the respondent that, complainants had not served 20 years subsequent to 16/11/1995 to give weightage of 2 years cannot be accepted. As per the decision rendered by Hon’ble. National Commission in R.P.No.3970/2009 dtd.29/6/2010 wherein a similar type of matters the Hon’ble. National Commission was pleased to hold that the period either under past service or the actual service or both as the case may be, will constitute eligible service. The eligibility for monthly pension to the member is determined with reference to eligible service only. Complainants are entitled for 2 years weightage under Rule.10 (2) of EPS 1995 and their pension have to be fixed accordingly. Hence, we have followed the said basic principle and guidelines enunciated by their lordships in the decision. Hence, in all these cases the complainants are entitled to 2 years weightage.
45. Past service benefit as provided the past service is 24 years, if it is less than 24 years, the pension and the past service benefit taken together shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum. Hence in these cases complainants rendered service accordingly past service benefit payable.
46. Respondent contended that complaints are barred by limitation but complainants contended that in the month of Dec 2012, Sept 2014, Nov 2014, Dec 2014 and Jan 2015. It came to the knowledge of the complainants that there are errors in the calculation pension fixed to them and it also came to their knowledge the pension now paid to them from the office of respondent is lesser. Hence, after knowing the matter complainants have issued letter and legal notice but, respondent not paid the revised pension amount. Hence, they have filed these complaints against the respondent. In complaint no 19/15 complainant has filed application 24A for condonation of delay said application is allowed. They have produced appeal copy of Hon’ble. Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Appeal No.415/2008 to 419/2008 it was held that period of limitation starts from date on which the pensioner came to know that the pension i.e. paid to them is not properly fixed is the date of cause of action so as to maintain the complaint. Considering that decision the complaints are maintainable.
47. The complainants pray for 18% interest from the date of retirement to till its realization. On perusal of the documents earlier the respondent was not paying two years weightage benefit to the employees who have fulfilled twenty years of service and attained 58 years i.e. superannuate. There was no specific direction to the respondent under those circumstances the respondent was not counting the same. The respondent contended that for calculation of pension the period of service will be considered only w.e.f. 16.11.1995. Monthly pension calculated in accordance with the scheme. There was amendment is there, respondent cannot go against the provisions. Hence there was no deficiency in service by the respondent. Later on the EPF authority issued circular to the respondent to pay the same two years weightage to   employees who are all eligible. Hence the respondent as per the direction of EPF authority paying the same. Subsequent to the circular of the respondent is paying. So paying interest on the said amount does not arise and complainants not entitle for interest as claimed. But complainants are entitled to interest @ 9% PA and they have entitle for cost of the proceedings Rs. 1000/- in each case and Rs.1000/- in each case as compensation for mental agony and harassment. 
48. The respondent taken a contention that, amendment of para 10.2 and para 12 deemed to have came in to force on 16.11.1995. In the light of above amendments respondents as fixed the pension of the complainants. The counsel for complainant has produced citations for support of their arguments i.e RP/3970/2009 NC & Appeal No.1256/09, CC/745/2008 Appeal No.415/08 to 419/08, ILR 2004 Karnataka 2859, 1984 Law Suit SC 122, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1143, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 592 & SLP Civil 30844/10 Supreme Court, Rev petition No 765/2013, 662/2014. In these decisions held that, since the said service is more than 20 years member would be entitled to weightage of 2 years in terms of Rule.10(2) of the said rules. ILR 2004 Karnataka 2859 & 2004 Law Suit KAR 307. The Hon’ble High Court held that, intention is to pay a sum equal  to pension plus past service benefit as per para 12 (4) (a & b). Further stated that clarification cannot run against the provisions social welfare legislation meant for weaker section of the society namely the workmen. Any interpretation has to be a beneficial interpretation. Taking into consideration all aspect of the matter including the clear language and benefit and object of the beneficial legislation. 1984 Law Suit SC 122- the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Government could not take away the accrued rights of such persons by making amendment of the rules with retrospective effects by adding proviso. AIR 1983 SC 1143= 1983 All LJ 516- Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision so as to impair or take away an existing rights.  Considering these decisions retrospective effect applying not proper.
49. In view of the above said reasons the point.1 is answered in affirmative and point.2 in affirmative but accordingly.
50. Point:3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following

O R D E R

CC/13/2015 to CC/24/2015 and CC/70/2015 to CC/75/2015 are allowed in part with a direction to the respondent to refix the pension amount in view of the observations made by this Forum as per the Rule 12(3) a ,b & c, Rule 12 (4) (a)(b), .12 (5) (a)(b), Para 12(7) and R/w. Rule 10 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 apart from giving past service benefit from the date of their retirement and balance pension amount be paid to each complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, apart from paying Rs.1,000/- in each case as cost of the litigation and Rs.1,000/- in each case as compensation for mental agony. Failing which the balance pension amount shall carry interest @9% p.a from the date of commencement of pension till its realization.

Original order be kept in Compt.CC/13/2015 and its copy in other connected cases.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 29^th day of April 2015)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                     (Shri.B.H.Shreeharsha)                                                                

Member                                                  President

Dist.Consumer Forum                     Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR