BEFORE THE  DIST.CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 29^th April 2016

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member

1. Complaint No.: 36 /2016
2. Complaint No.: 37 /2016
3. Complaint No.: 38 /2016
4. Complaint No.: 39 /2016
5. Complaint No.: 40 /2016
6. Complaint No.: 41 /2016
7. Complaint No.: 42 /2016
8. Complaint No.: 43 /2016
9. Complaint No.: 44 /2016
10. Complaint No.: 45 /2016
11. Complaint No.: 46/2016
12. Complaint No.: 48/2016
13. Complaint No.: 49/2016
14. Complaint No.: 50/2016
15. Complaint No.: 51/2016
16. Complaint No.: 52 /2016
17. Complaint No.: 55 /2016
18. Complaint No.: 56 /2016
19. Complaint No.: 57 /2016
20. Complaint No.: 65 /2016
21. Complaint No.: 66 /2016
22. Complaint No.: 67 /2016
23. Complaint No.: 68 /2016
24. Complaint No.: 69 /2016
25. Complaint No.: 70 /2016
26. Complaint No.: 71 /2016

Complainant/s:              Shivashankarappa s/o.Gangappa Hatti,

Age: 76 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o.At Po: Shirasangi, Tq. Saundatti, Dist.Belgaum.

In C-36/2016

                                        Basappa s/o.Demayya Bailur,

Age: 77 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. #11, 5^th Cross, Ajaum Nagar, Belgaum.

In C-37/2016

                                        Basavaraj s/o.Basavanneppa

Godachinmalki,

Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. CTS #2017/A, Laxmi Krupa, Near Siddeshwar Temple, Somawarpeth, Tq. Gokak, Dist. Belgaum.

In C-38/2016

                                        Chandrashekhar s/o.Kariyappa Kadakol,

Age: 66 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Behind Om Building, Gouri Shankar Nagar, Tq. Ranebennur, Dist. Haveri.

In C-39/2016

                                        Neelappa s/o.Ningappa Godi,

Age: 64 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Gudur, Tq.Hungund, Dist.Bagalkot.

In C-40/2016

Fakkirayya s/o.Andanayya Kalmath,

Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Behind Chandan School, Shigli Road, At Post:Laxmeshwar, Dist.Gadag.

In C-41/2016

Muralidhar s/o.Namdev Jadhav,

Age: 66 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. House# 286, Ambedkar Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Belgaum.

In C-42/2016

                                        Vasant  Shetty s/o.Laxman Shetty,

Age: 69 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. At Po: Ankola, Tq. & Dist.Karwar.

In C-43/2016

                                        Basappa s/o.Shivalingappa Sharaganavi,

Age: 60 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Sai Complex, Near Court Circle, Tq. Hukkeri, Dist.Belgaum.

In C-44/2016

                                        Rudrappa s/o.Balappa Hukkeri,

Age: 65 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. At Po: Bailur, Tq. Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum.

In C-45/2016

                                        Shrishail s/o.Ishwarappa Bilagi,

Age: 75 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. P.No.1030, Shrinagar, Durga Road, Tq. & Dist. Belgaum.

In C-46/2016

                                        Chambanna s/o.Shaknarappa Singanalli,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Somawarpeth, At Post: Kittur, Tq. Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum.

In C-48/2016

                                        Appasaheb s/o.Sidramappa Wantamutte,

Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Sector# 33, Plot No.99, Shanti Nagar, Tilakwadi, Belgaum.

In C-49/2016

Mustak Ahmed  s/o.Mohammed Husen

Pachapur

Age: 66  years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Plot # 34, Veerabhadra Nagar, 2^nd Cross, Belgaum.

In C-50/2016

Manohar s/o.Sidramappa Jigajini,

Age: 77 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. House # 1987, Kore Galli, Shahapur, Tq. & Dist. Tilakwadi, Belgaum.

In C-51/2016

Appasaheb s/o.Jamburao Desai,

Age: 73 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Padmavati Nivas, At Post: Haliyal, Dist.Karwar.

In C-52/2016

Anant s/o.Ramachandra Deshapande,

Age: 67 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Plot # 177/B14, Near Chidambeshwar Temple, Vidyanagar, At Post: Gokak, Dist. Belgaum.

In C-55/2016

Ashok s/o.Anantarao Deshapande,

Age: 68 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. No.80/B, Panta Nagar, At Post: Balekundri, Tq. & Dist., Belgaum.

In C-56/2016

Dastagirsab  s/o.Bujaruksab Bogur,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Makan Mohalla, House # 402/2, Somwarpet, At Post:Kittur, Dist. Belgaum.

In C-57/2016

Narasimha s/o.Shivabatta Anigeri,

Age: 77 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.625, 2^nd Stage, Rani Channamma Nagar, Belgaum, Tq. & Dist.Belgaum

In C-65/2016

Haroonsab s/o.Mohabubasab Walikar,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Walikar Chawl, P.B.Road, Vidyanagar, At Po:Haveri, Dist.Haveri.

In C-66/2016

Mahammad Hanif s/o.Hasansaheb Kaginelli,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Near Devadar Hospital Road, Kolkar Oni, Karnataka.

In C-67/2016

Shrimanth s/o.Maruthi Chougala,

Age: 69 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Basaveshwar Nagar, At Po: & Tq.Chikkodi, Dist.Belgaum

In C-68/2016

Sharanabasappa  s/o.Channappa Angadi,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Basav Sadan, Hosur, Hubli.

In C-69/2016

Kristappa s/o.Rangappa Dandagi,

Age: 76 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Ramapur Site, Near Khadi Bhadar, Gurlhosur, Savadatti, Dist.Belgaum. 

In C-70/2016

1.     Smt.Shantala w/o.Hanamanth Deshapande, 

Age: 59 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. At Post:Bellad Bagewadi, Tq. Hukkeri, Dist. Belagavi

2.     Smt.Shreya w/o.Sharad Inamdar, 

Age: 29 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. At Post:Bastawad, Tq.Shirol, Dist.Kolhapur.

3.     Smt.Deepa w/o.Shriram Badamikar, 

Age: 27 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Near Hanuman Temple, At Post:Rabkavi, Tq. Jamakhandi, Dist.Bagalkot.

4.     Miss Archana D/o.Hanamanth Deshapande,

Age: 24 years, Occ: Student, R/o. At Po:Bellad Bagewadi, Tq. Hukkeri, Dist.Belagavi

In C-71/2016

                                (By Sri.R.P.Koparde, Adv.)

v/s.

Respondent/s :         

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension),   Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, New 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 twenty six 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 @12% P.A. and to give annual relief along with other reliefs.
3. Complainants were employees of KSRTC, Spinning Mill Gokak, Karnataka Cooperative Sugar Factory, JNMSC, Prabha Sugar, Gokak, BDCC Bank in different posts.  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.
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. 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. Respondent further contended that any amendments made and published in Gazette of India are justifiable. Accordingly amendment to Sec.10(2) of EPS was made vide GSR 594 Dt.23.07.2009 w.e.f. 24.07.2009. Similarly para.12 of EPS 1995 was also amended vide GSR 431 (E) Dt.15.06.2007 (deemed to have come into force from the date from which EPS 1995 came into force i.e. from 16.11.1995). The amendments as cited above have been brought by way of amendment passed by Parliament of India the Supreme Court cannot challenge any amendment carried out by Parliament of India under 42^nd amendment the supremacy of the parliament has been established. The Hon’ble Supreme Court gave this historical judgment in the case of Sri.Keshwanand Bharati vs. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461 upholding 24^th amendment of the constitution and gave back to parliament the right to amended any part of the constitution including fundamental rights without affecting its basic structure. National Commission, State Commission and High Court and Supreme Court cannot interpret the provisions of EPF & Misc. Act 1952. The purpose for which the amendments were passed with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. 16.11.1995.
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  and annual relief is not given. On that ground they have sought for re-fixation of their pension apart from arrears of pension amount, interest and cost of the litigation.
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. 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.
15. On perusal of the documents in all these cases, complainants were members of Employee Family Pension Scheme 1971 and Employee Pension Scheme 1995.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. After amendment which is expressly stand with effect from 24-07-2009, para10(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 20years pensionable service or more , his pensionable service shall be increased by a weightage of 2 years.

19. In C- 36/16 In this case complainant rendered past service was 23 years. Actually service was 1 year. Eligible service was 24 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 31/05/1997 date of commencement of pension 01/06/1997. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that  is he rendered more than 20 years of eligible service and he attained 58 years at the time of retirement. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit. But respondent given 2 years weightage  amount, after considering 2 years weightage  it comes  Rs.214/-. Minimum of Rs.335/-, respondent already given. Hence question of 2 years weightage  does not arise.

Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated Rs.196/- is same, but complainant prays minimum of Rs.265/- as per Para 12.5 (b). Complainant retired from service on 31/5/1997 hence before amendment of para.12.5 (b) complainant is entitled to Rs.265/- p.m. because scheme has given option whichever is more complainant is entitled.

20. In C- 37/16 In this case complainant rendered past service was 24 years. Actually service was 1 year. Eligible service was 25 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 29/02/1996 date of commencement of pension 29/02/1996. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that  he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit. But respondent given 2 years weightage  amount, after considering 2 years weightage  it comes  Rs.214/-. Minimum of Rs.335/-, respondent already given. Hence question of 2 years weightage does not arise.

Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated Rs.178/-, but complainant prays minimum of Rs.500/- as per Para 12.5 (b) because complainant rendered past service was 24 years. Hence complainant as per para.12.5 (b) he is entitled to Rs.500/- p.m. because scheme has given whichever is more complainant is entitled.

21. In C- 38/16 In this case complainant rendered past service was 14 years. Actually service was 7 years. 101 NCP days deducted. Actual service was 6 years. Eligible service was 20 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 11.06.2002 date of commencement of pension 12.06.2002. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit. But complainant claimed Rs.635/- as per para 12(3) (a), respondent calculated Rs.438/- as per para 12.4(b), But complainant pension sanctioned under para.12(3). Hence as per para 12(3)(a) complainant is entitled to Rs.635/-.  

Past service benefit considered respondent calculated Rs.313/- as per Table.B factor is correct, but complainant prays minimum of Rs.450/- as per Para 12.3 (b) but scheme has given option whichever is more complainant is entitled. Hence complainant is entitled to Rs.450/- of past service benefit.

At the time of retirement age of complainant was 52 years, hence as per para.12.7 pension shall be reduced @3% the age falls short of 58 years.

22. In C- 39/16 In this case complainant rendered past service was 20 years. Actually service was 11 years. 1158 NCP days deducted. Actual service was 10 years. Eligible service was 30 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 16.01.2007 date of commencement of pension 17.01.2007. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that  he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service & he attained 58 years. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.  But respondent on 21.03.2016 paid arrears of 2 years weightage  difference amount of Rs.17936/- to complainant. Hence question of 2 years weightage  not arise.

Past service benefit considered complainant calculated less than 12 years 170 x 2.992 is not correct. Complainant rendered past service was 20 years. Hence 135 x 2.992=   Rs.403.92 is correct.   But complainant claimed minimum of Rs.450/- as per 12.3(b). Hence complainant is entitled to PSB Rs.450/-.

23. In C- 40/16 In this case complainant rendered past service was 19 years. Actually service was 5 years.  Eligible service was 24 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 30.06.2000 date of commencement of pension 01.06.2001. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that  is he rendered more than 20 years of eligible service. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit. But complainant claimed as per para.12(3)(a) of Rs.635/-. Scheme is given option whenever is more complainant is entitled. Hence complainant is entitled to Rs.635/-.

Past service benefit considered complainant calculated Rs.435.  Respondent calculated Rs.435/-. But complainant claimed Rs.450/- minimum as per para 12(3) (b). Hence complainant is entitled to PSB Rs.450/-.

At the time of retirement age of complainant was 49 years, hence as per para.12.7 pension shall be reduced @3% the age falls short of 58 years.

24. In C- 41/16 In this case respondent paid 2 years weightage  difference amount of Rs.14328/- on March 2015. Hence question of 2 years weightage  does not arise.  

Past service benefit considered respondent calculated less than 13 years B factor is 85 x 2.616=222 is correct but complainant claimed as per para 12.3(b) minimum of Rs.450/-.  Hence complainant is entitled to PSB Rs.450/-.

25.  In C- 42/16  In this case complainant rendered past service was 22 years. Actually service was 7 years.  368 NCP days deducted actual service was 6 years. Total Eligible service was 28 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 14.05.2003 date of commencement of pension 15.05.2003. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that  he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.

 Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated PSB Rs.509/- is same. Hence no dispute. 

 At the time of retirement age of complainant was 54 years, hence as per para.12.7 pension shall be reduced @3% the age falls short of 58 years.

26. In C- 43/16  In this case complainant rendered past service was 21 years. Actually service was 6 years.  396 NCP days deducted actual service was 5 years. Total Eligible service was 26 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 16.01.2002 date of commencement of pension 17.01.2002. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that  he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.

 Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated PSB Rs.382/- is same. Hence no dispute. 

 At the time of retirement age of complainant was 56 years, hence as per para.12.7 pension shall be reduced @3% the age falls short of 58 years.

27. In C- 44/16  In this case complainant rendered past service was 19 years. Actually service was 10 years.   Total Eligible service was 29 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 10.03.2007 date of commencement of pension 07.05.2008. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that  he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.

 Past service benefit considered less than 18 years 135 x 5.301 =716/- is correct but B factor amended on 09.06.2008. But complainant retired on 10.03.2007 & date of commencement of pension was 07.05.2008. hence before amended B factor is applicable considered that complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.716/- is correct.  

 At the time of retirement age of complainant was 52  years, hence as per para.12.7 pension shall be reduced @3% the age falls short of 58 years.

28. In C- 45/16  In this case complainant rendered past service was 15 years. Actually service was 11 years. 865 NCP Days deducted, actual service was 9 years.  Total Eligible service was 24 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 09.01.2007 date of commencement of pension 10.01.2007. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that  he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.

 Past service benefit considered respondent  calculated less than 13 years, 105 x 3.292=Rs.346 is correct. Hence complainant is entitled to Rs.346/-.

 At the time of retirement age of complainant was 57  years, hence as per para.12.7 pension shall be reduced @3% the age falls short of 58 years.

29. In C- 46/16 In this case complainant rendered past service was 24 years. Actually service was 3 years.    Total Eligible service was 27 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 28.07.1998 date of commencement of pension 28.07.1998. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service & he attained 58 years. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit. Respondent paid 2 years weightage  difference amount of Rs.4682/- on November 2014. Hence question of 2 years weightage  does not arise. 

Past service benefit considered complainant rendered past service was 24 years. Hence complainant is entitled to as per para.12.3(b) of Rs.500/-.  

30. In C- 48/16  In this case complainant rendered past service was 9 years. Actually service was 11 years.    299 NCP days deducted, actual service was 10 years. Total Eligible service was 19 years. In this case complainant retired from service on 29.07.2006 date of commencement of pension 01.01.2011.  Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that he is attained 58 years.  Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.  

Past service benefit considered respondent calculated amended B factor is 3.296 but complainant retired on 29.07.2006. Hence before amended B factor that is 4.381 applicable. Considered that complainant is entitled to PSB Rs.372/-. But complainant claimed as per para.12(3)(b) minimum of Rs.450/-. Hence complainant is entitled to as per para 12(3) (b) Rs.450/-.

31.  In C- 49/16 In this case  respondent paid arrears of 2 years weightage amount of Rs.25536/- on December 2014. Hence   question of 2 years weightage  does not arise. 

Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated Rs.195/- But complainant prays minimum of Rs.325/- as per para 12 (3) (b) but 12(3)(b) minimum of Rs.450/- is there. Complainant prays for Rs.325/- is entitled. Hence he is entitled to PSB of Rs.325/-.

32. In C- 50/16 In this case  respondent paid arrears  2 years weightage amount of Rs.15837/- on December 2014. Hence   question of 2 years weightage  does not arise. 

Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated Rs.509/- is same. But complainant prays minimum of Rs.800/- because complainant rendered past service was 24 years. Hence as per  para 12 (3) (b) complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.800/-.

33. In C- 51/16  In this case complainant rendered past service was 24 years. Actually service was 2 years. Eligible service was 26 years.    In this case complainant retired from service on 31.01.1997 date of commencement of pension 01.02.1997.  Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that he is attained 58 years & rendered more than 20 years of eligible service.  Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.  But after calculation of 2 years weightage  it comes Rs.214/- minimum of Rs.335/-, respondent has already paid, hence question of 2 years weightage  does not arise.

Past service benefit considered complainant rendered past service was 24 years. Hence complainant is entitled to as per para 12(5)(b) of Rs.500/-.

34. In C- 52/16 In this case  respondent paid arrears of 2 years weightage amount of Rs.17597/- on December 2014. Hence of question of 2 years weightage  does not arise. 

Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated Rs.261/- is same. But complainant prays minimum of Rs.265/- as per  para 12 (5) (b). Hence complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.265/-.

35. In C- 55/16 In this case  respondent paid arrears of 2 years weightage amount of Rs.19344/- on February 2015. Hence question of 2 years weightage  does not arise. 

Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated Rs.258/- is same. But complainant prays minimum of Rs.450/- as per para 12 (3) (b). Hence complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.450/-.

36. In C- 56/16 In this case  respondent paid arrears of 2 years weightage amount of Rs.21275/- on March 2015. Hence question of 2 years weightage  does not arise. 

Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated Rs.420/- is same. But complainant prays minimum of Rs.600/- because complainant rendered past service was 24 years.  Hence complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.600/- as per para 12.4(b).

37. In C- 57/16   In this case complainant rendered past service was 11 years. Actually service was 11 years.   585 NCP days deducted, actual service was 9 years. Total Eligible service was 20 years.   In this case complainant retired from service on 21.06.2006 date of commencement of pension 08.11.2006.  Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service.  Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.   

At the time of retirement age of complainant was 54 years, hence as per para.12.7 pension shall be reduced @3% the age falls short of 58 years.

Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated Rs.339/- but complainant claimed minimum of Rs.450/-. Hence complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.450/- as  per para 12(3)(b).

38. In C- 65/16   In this case complainant and respondent calculated pension amount is same. After calculation of 2 years weightage  it comes to Rs.214/-. But minimum of Rs.335/- respondent already paid. Hence of question of 2 years weightage  does not arise.

Past service benefit considered  respondent calculated Rs.178/- but complainant claimed minimum of Rs.500/- because complainant rendered past service was 24 years. Hence as per para 12.3(b) complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.500/-.

39. In C- 66/16   In this case complainant rendered past service was 20 years. Actually service was 10 years Total Eligible service was 30 years.   In this case complainant retired from service on 10.05.2006 date of commencement of pension 10.05.2007. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that is he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service.  Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.   

At the time of retirement age of complainant was 53 years, hence as per para.12.7 pension shall be reduced @3% the age falls short of 58 years.

Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated PSB of Rs.745/- is no dispute.  Hence complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.745/- as  per para 12(3)(b).

40. In C- 67/16   In this case complainant rendered past service was 15 years. Actually service was 15 years. 73 NCP days deducted, actual service was 15 years. Total Eligible service was 30 years.   In this case complainant retired from service on 29.04.2011 date of commencement of pension 30.04.2011. Hence after amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that he is attained 58 years and he rendered more than 20 years of eligible service, he fulfilled both aspects.  Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.   

 Past service benefit considered respondent calculated 105x3.296 is correct because complainant retired from service on 29.04.2011. Hence amended Table B factor is applicable and his past service was 20 years, hence 105 is correct. Hence complainant is entitled PSB of Rs.346/-.

41. In C- 68/16   In this case complainant rendered past service was 20 years. Actually service was 9 years.  Total Eligible service was 29 years.   In this case complainant retired from service on 15.04.2005 date of commencement of pension 01.08.2005. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that he is rendered more than 20 years of eligible service.  Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.   

 Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated PSB of Rs.420/- is same. Hence no dispute.  At the time of retirement age of complainant was 57 years 8 months, hence as per para.12.7 pension shall be reduced @3% the age falls short of 58 years.

42. In C- 69/16   In this case complainant rendered past service was 14  years. Actually service was 15 years.  Total Eligible service was 29 years.   In this case complainant retired from service on 31.05.2010 date of commencement of pension 01.06.2010. Hence after amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that he is attained 58 years and he rendered more than 20 years of eligible service. Complainant fulfilled both aspects. Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.   

 Past service benefit considered respondent calculated B factor is correct because complainant retired from service on 31.05.2010. Hence amended B factor is applicable and in this case minimum not applicable because he retired after amendment. Hence in this case complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.320/-. 

43. In C- 70/16   In this case complainant rendered past service was 23 years. Actually service was 1 year.  Total Eligible service was 24 years.   In this case complainant retired from service on 30.06.1997 date of commencement of pension 30.06.1997. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that he is attained 58 years and he rendered more than 20 years of eligible service.  Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.   But after calculation of 2 years of weightage  it comes to Rs.214/- but respondent given minimum of Rs.335/-. Hence question of 2 years weightage  does not arise.

Past service benefit considered complainant and respondent calculated of Rs.196/-  is same,  but complainant prays minimum of Rs.265/-, scheme is given option to whenever is more complainant is entitled hence, in this case complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.265/- as per para 12.5(b).

44. In C- 71/16   In this case complainant rendered past service was 24 years. Actually service was 2 years.  Total Eligible service was 26 years.   In this case complainant retired from service on 30.06.1997 date of commencement of pension 01.07.1997. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable considered that he is attained 58 years and he rendered more than 20 years of eligible service.  Hence complainant is entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.   But after calculation of 2 years of weightage  it comes to Rs.286/- but respondent given minimum of Rs.335/-. Hence question of 2 years weightage  does not arise.

Past service benefit considered respondent calculated PSB of Rs.196/- but complainant prays minimum of Rs.500/-, Because complainant rendered past service was 24 years. Hence as per Para 12.5 B complainant entitled to PSB of Rs.500/-.

45. The complainants pray for 12% 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 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. Since there was no amendment at that time, 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 complainants not entitle for interest as claimed but respondent failing which the complainants are entitled to interest @9% P.A. from the date of commencement of pension till its realization because complainants invested the said amount in bank they would have earned interest hence complainants are entitled to interest @9% P.A from the date of commencement of pension till its realization and also complainants are entitled to cost of the proceedings Rs. 1000/- & Rs.1000/- as compensation for mental agony in each case. 
46. Respondent contended that complaints are barred by limitation but complainants contended that in the month of  October 2012, September 2014, September 2015, December 2015, January 2015 & February 2016 it came to the knowledge of the complainants through one of the colleagues 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.  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. Respondent has relied on citations RP/4392/14 to 4443/14, RP/3822/14, RP/3826/14 & Keshavanand Bharati vs. State of Kerala. In these cases respondent argued that in Keshavanand Bharati vs. State of Kerala case the Hon’ble. Supreme Court  held 24^th amendment of the constitution and gave back to parliament, the right to amend any part of the constitution including fundamental rights without affecting its basic structure. Hence respondent argued that the amendments of EPF Acts all are justifiable.
48. In support of cases complainant has produced citations Part 2010(3) CPR 45 NC , Part(3) 2013CPJ 244 NC, Appeal No 613/12 to 656/12, AIR 2008 SC 2957 and ILR 2004 Karnataka 2859. In these cases complainant argued that in their citation held that, complainants rendered (past and actual service) total service falls with pensionable service and respondent stated that 2 years weightage is to be given only in the year November 2015 does not get any support from any provisions in the EPS 1995 and clarification issued by respondent cannot run against the existing provisions and that too when it is concerning social welfare legislation. Complainants are consumers.
49. On perusal of the both the parties produced by the documents and citations. Respondent argued that Keshwanand Bharati case Supreme Court upholding 24^th amendment of the constitution and gave back to parliament, the right to amend any part of constitution including fundamental rights without effecting its basic structure. Hence, amendments to EPF schemes are all justifiable. But in this case also Supreme Court held that without effecting its basic structure amendment was justifiable. Preamble also contains the basic structure of our constitution, which cannot be amended. Respondent has produced Keshwanand Bharati case year of judgment was 1973 but Supreme Court in the year 1983 observation made in AIR 1983 1143 and 1983 all LG 516 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provisions so as to impair or take away on existing rights.
50. In view of the observations made in RP/3970/2009 NC & Appeal No.1256/09, CC/745/2008, ILR 2004 Karnataka 2859, 1984 Law Suit SC, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1143, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 592 & SLP Civil 30844/10 Supreme Court. In these decisions it is held that, since the members (employees) have rendered service 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 of 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 accrued rights of such persons by making amendment of the rules with retrospective effects by adding proviso. Considering these decisions retrospective effect applying not proper because which affects the constitutional rights of the citizens and object and aim of the scheme. Scheme is beneficial to the workers. The time of entering into the scheme by the complainants no such provisions were existing and there is no material evidence available on record to show that the same is applicable retrospectively. The circular issued by the government cannot be treated as amendment to the Act.
51. Complainants argued that respondent not given annual report every year but respondent is no authority to give annual report. This authority is only central government, respondent is only agent of central government. Hence no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

52. In view of the above said reasons the point.1 is answered in affirmative and point.2 in affirmative but accordingly.

53)Point:3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following

O R D E R

The complaints  36/16 to 46/16 and 48/16 to 52/16 and 55/16 to  57/16 and 65/16 to 71/16 are allowed in part. In these cases some  complainants are entitled to 2 years weightage and past service benefit. Hence  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), 12(4) (a&b) and 12(5) (a&b) and R/w. Rule 10 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 apart from giving 2 years weightage and Past Service Benefits  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.36/2016 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 2016)

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

Member                                                      President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                 Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR