BEFORE THE  DIST.CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 31^st August  2015

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member

1. Complaint No.: 179 /2015
2. Complaint No.:  180/2015
3. Complaint No.:  181/2015
4. Complaint No.:  182/2015 
5. Complaint No.:  183/2015 
6. Complaint No.:  184/2015
7. Complaint No.:  185/2015
8. Complaint No.:  186/2015
9. Complaint No.:  187/2015 
10. Complaint No.: 188 /2015 
11. Complaint No.:  189/2015 
12. Complaint No.:  190/2015 
13. Complaint No.:  191/2015 
14. Complaint No.:  192/2015 
15. Complaint No.:  193/2015 
16. Complaint No.:  199/2015 
17. Complaint No.:  200/2015 
18. Complaint No.:  201/2015 
19. Complaint No.:  202/2015 
20. Complaint No.:  203/2015 
21. Complaint No.:  205/2015 
22. Complaint No.:  206/2015 

Complainant/s:     

Somappa s/o.Fakirappa Mundinmani,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired Employee,

H.No.95,Veerasangolli Rayanna Nagar,

Bhairadavarkoppa, Hubli-25.

In CC/179/2015

Basappa  s/o.Udachappa Sogalad,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired Employee,

Tonapi Galli, At Po: Madhihal,

Dist: Dharawd.

In CC/180/2015

Kallappa s/o.Shankarappa Hongal,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired Employee,

C/o:Gurapadappa Anand, At Po:Kamalapur,

Dist: Dharwad

In CC/181/2015

Ibrahimsab s/o.Rajesab Karnachi

Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired Employee,

H.No-32, Santosh Nagar, Post: Vijayanagar,

Hubli, Dist: Dharwad

In CC/182/2015

Gadigeppa s/o.Malleshappa Marakatti,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired Employee,

Akki Oni, At Po: Savadatti, Dist: Belgavi.

In CC/183/2015

Devidas s/o.Triyambak Arkasali,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee,

Near Shivaganga Talkies, Post:Kalaghatagi,

Dist: Dharwad.

In CC/184/2015

Smt.Renu W/o.Raghavendra Shahare,

Age: 60 years, Occ: Retired Employee,

JNMC Qtr No.C-4/3,JNMC Quarters,Nehru Nagar, Dist:Belgavi.

In CC/185/2015

Raghavendra s/o.Tammaji Talavai,

Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired Employee,

Kamatad Oni,At Po: Hebballi,

Dist:Dharwad.

In CC/186/2015

Irahimakhan s/o.Mahamedkhan Jahagiradar,

Age: 63 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Bad, Post: Salkinakoppa, Dist.Dharwad.

In CC/187/2015

Shivappa s/o.Krishtappa Hebballi,

Age: 73 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. C/o.Sai Dwarakamai Store, Jumma Masjid Road, At Post: Ranebennur, Dist. Haveri.

In CC/188/2015

Nagappa s/o.Kareppa Naregal,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Siddarudha Colony, Madihal, Dist. Dharwad.

In CC/189/2015

Madeppa s/o.Basavanthappa Gulannavar,

Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Kittur Channamma Samadi Road, Near R.G.Kulkarni Hospital, Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum.

In CC/190/2015

Abdullatifkhan s/o.Abdulkarimkhan Jahagirdar,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Bad, Post: Salkinakoppa, Dist.Dharwad.

                                                                              In CC/191/2015

Hanumanthappa s/o.Basavanneppa Waddar,

Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Near Tulaja Bhavani Temple, Shri Ram Nagar, Hattikolla,  Dharwad.

                                                                              In CC/192/2015

Irappa s/o.Parappa Pattanshetty,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Siddarudha Colony, Madihal, Dist. Dharwad.

                                                                              In CC/193/2015

Basavaraj s/o.Puttappa Patri,

Age: 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Noorani Plot, Nekar Nagar Road, Near Water Tank, Old Hubli.

                                                                              In CC/199/2015

Gundappa s/o.Annappa Patil,

Age: 64 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. C/o. Vasant Patil, 63/1, Kallameshwar Nagar, Majaganva, Tq. & Dist. Belgaum.

                                                                              In CC/200/2015

Basayya s/o.Shivamurthayya Hiremath,

Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Vijay Nagar Badawane, APMC Road, Near Paragi Mill, Haveri.

                                                                              In CC/201/2015

Netaji s/o.Krishnaji Savant,

Age: 58 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No. 1/3315, 10^th Cross, B-Block, Basaveshwar Nagar, Haveri.

                                                                              In CC/202/2015

Irappa s/o.Shivalingappa Hudli,

Age: 61 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. At:Basapur, Post.Kittur, Tq. Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum. 

                                                                              In CC/203/2015

Abdul Rahiman S/o.Abdul Rafik Betageri,

Age: 60 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. Noorani Plot, Nekar Nagar Road, Near Water Tank, Old Hubli. 

                                                                              In CC/205/2015

Shivakumar s/o.Revanappa Muddi,

Age: 58 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No. 3224, Bannadamath Street, At Po: & Dist.Haveri.

                                                                              In CC/206/2015

                                (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 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 joined service NWKRTC, KLE, Belgaum, Karnataka Kendra Sahakari Bank Niyamit Dharwad, Karnataka co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., Hubli, 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- 179/15, 180/15, 181/15, 182/15, 183/15, 184/15, 185/15, 186/15, 187/15, 189/15, 190/15, 191/15, 192/15 and 193/15 In all these cases complainants are attained 58 years and they rendered more than  20 years of Eligible service. Complainants retired from service after amendment of para 10(2). Hence amended para 10(2) is applicable. Para 10(2) is amended on 24.07.2009. Considering that complainants fulfilled both aspects i.e. they rendered more than 20 years of eligible service and they attained 58 years. Hence complainants are entitled to 2 years weightage benefit.  
20. In C- 179/15 In this case complainant rendered past service was 13 years. Actually service was 14 years 4 months 4 days. Eligible service was 27 years. 345 NCP days deducted actual service was 13 years. Hence respondent calculated actual service was 13 years. Past service considered complainant calculated past service was less than 15 years, complainant calculated Table B factor is prior to amended. Table B factor amended on 10.06.2008. Complainant  retired from service on 09.04.2010. Hence amended Table B factor is applicable. But in this case complainant claimed past service benefit as per Para 12(3)(ii), it says that “A minimum of Rs.800 per month provided the eligible service is 24 years. If it is less than 24 years the pension as computed above shall be reduced proportionately subject to a minimum of Rs.450 p.m”. Hence complainant is entitled to minimum of PSB Rs.450/- per month as per para 12(3) (ii).  
21. In C- 180/15 In this case complainant calculated Table B factor less than 16 years. Respondent calculated less than 15 years. Date of birth of complainant was 01.05.1952 as on 16.11.1995 age of complainant was 43 years. 58- 43 = 15. Hence less than 15 years is correct, but complainant calculated PSB Table B factor prior to amended factor, but respondent calculated amended Table B factor is correct. But complainant claimed as per para.12(3) (ii). Hence complainant is entitled to PSB minimum of Rs.450/- as per para.12(3) (ii).

22.    In C- 181/15 In this case complainant calculated Table B factor prior to amendment but respondent calculated amended Table B factor  is correct. But complainant claimed as per para.12(3) (ii) minimum of Rs.450/- he is entitled.  

23. In C- 182/15 In this case complainant calculated Table B factor less than 16 years. Respondent calculated less than 17 years. Date of birth of complainant was 30.12.1953, as on 16.11.1995 age of complainant was 42 years. 58- 42 = 16. Hence less than 16 years is correct, but complainant calculated PSB Table B factor prior to amended factor but respondent calculated amended Table B factor less than 17 years. Hence less than 16 years Table B factor is 3.296 is correct. But complainant claimed as per para.12(3) (ii) minimum of Rs.450/- per month. Hence complainant is entitled to PSB minimum of Rs.450/- as per para.12(3) (ii).

24. In C- 183/15, 184/15, 185/15, 186/15, 187/15, 189/15, 190/15, 191/15, 192/15 & 193/15 In these cases complainants calculated PSB prior to amended Table B factor. But respondent calculated amended Table B factor is correct. because complainants are retired after amended  Table B factor. Table B factor amended on 10.06.2008. Hence amended Table B factor is applicable but complainants are claimed as per Para 12(3) (ii) minimum of Rs.450/- per month. Hence in all these cases complainants are entitled PSB minimum of Rs.450/- per month except CC/190/15 respondent calculated amended Table.B factor less than 17 years PSB Rs.481/- per month is correct. Hence in these cases complainants are entitled to PSB of Rs.481/- per month.
25. In C- 188/15, 199/15, 200/15, 201/15, 202/15, 203/15, 205/15, 206/15  In these cases complainants are rendered more than 20 years of eligible service but at the time of retirement complainants are not attained 58 years. They retired from service on 05.11.1997, 28.07.2008, 30.09.2008 respectively. Date of commencement of pension on 06.11.1997, 17.12.2008, 15.10.2008, 08.12.2008, 22.01.2009, 05.03.2009, 29.01.2009 and 30.01.2009. Hence before amended para 10(2) is applicable. Para.10(2) is amended on 24.07.2009. Hence as per prior to amend para.10(2) considered complainants are rendered more than 20 years of eligible service hence complainants are entitled to 2 years weightage  benefit. But they are retired before attending the age of 58 years. Pension was reduced 3% to 4% amended on 26.09.2008. In these cases after amended they were retired. Hence as per para.12.7 their pension was reduced @4% per every year the age falls short of 58 years. But CC/188/15 in this case only 3% was deducted because he retired from service 05.11.1997.

26. In C- 188/15 In this case complainant pension was sanctioned under Para-12.5 the complainant and respondent calculated Table B factor less than 5 years is correct. But complainant claimed past service benefit as per 12.5(b) of Rs.500/- per month because he rendered past service was 24 years. Hence complainant is entitled to PSB of Rs.500/- per month.  In complaint complainant admitted that ROC deducted 10% and annual relief on 31.03.1998, 31.03.1999, and 31.03.2000 the rate of 5.5%, 4% and 4% respectively, it is necessary to add the same to the monthly pension. Respondent also admitted above said year rate of annual relief. Hence above said relief to add to the monthly pension of complainant.
27. In C- 199/15, 200/15, 201/15, 202/15, 203/15, 205/15, 206/15, In all these cases respondent calculated past service benefit amended Table B factor is correct, but complainants calculated before amended Table B factor. But complainants claimed PSB as per para.12(3) (b) minimum of Rs.450/- per month hence as per para.12(3) (b) complainants are entitled to PSB minimum of Rs.450/- per month in each case.
28. 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 these cases the complainants are entitled to 2 years weightage.
29. 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.
30. Respondent contended that complaints are barred by limitation but complainants contended that in the month of  December 2013, January 2015, 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.
31. 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 weighatge 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. 

32. 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.
33. In support of cases complainant has produced citations Part 4 (2014) CPJ 417 NC, RP/2864/14 National Commission, 2014 CJ 702 NC; RP/2238 – 2272/14, RP/765/13, RP/3970/09 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.
34. 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.
35. 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 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.
36. 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.

37. In view of the above said reasons the point.1 is answered in affirmative and point.2 in affirmative but accordingly.
38. Point:3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following

O R D E R

CC 179/15 to 193/15 & 199/15 to 203/15 and 205/15, 206/15 are allowed in part. In these cases complainants are entitled to 2 years weightage along with past service benefit 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 (5) (a and b) 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.179/2015 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 31^st day of August 2015)

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

Member                                                      President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                 Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR