PRESENT: Sh.M.G.Sharma, Agent for the Complainant.

         Sh.R.K.Syal, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 4

           Sh.N.K.Zakhmi, Adv. for OPs No.2 & 3.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, the complainant, superannuated on 31.5.2008 from the Food Corporation of India.  He contributed towards Employees’ Pension Scheme EPS-1995 vide EPS A/C No.8578 and was entitled for full rate monthly pension on attaining the age of 58 years i.e. effective from 16.05.2006.  He submitted the form 10-D for fixation of his monthly pension at full rate much before 25.10.2007. The OPs were required to fix his monthly pension effective from 16.05.2006 by issuing the Pension Payment Order (PPO) but the same was not done  despite number of visits and enquiries made by the complainant. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case.

3]      OPs No. 1 & 4 in their joint written statement/reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, denied that there was any delay on the part of the answering OPs.  It has been pleaded that the claim form 10D was received in the office of Assistant/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Noida (U.P.) (O.P.No.4) on 29.09.2009 only, which was under process and received alongwith relevant documents by R.P.F.C. Chandigarh on 26.10.2009 (OP No.1) for issuing the PPO in favour of the complainant, as the Complainant desired monthly pension through his Bank, PNB, Samana, Patiala (Punjab). His Pension Payment Order (PPO) No. 17285, dated 12.11.2009 had since been forwarded to his Banker. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

4]      OPs No. 2 & 3 which are the main parties in this case in their joint reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the Complainant had submitted Form 10-D for fixation of monthly pension only in the month of Oct.2007 which was forwarded by OP No. 2 to the OP No. 3 vide letter dated 25.10.2007. The OP No. 3 found that he had not filled in his new SS No. form and the same was returned by the OP No. 3 to OP No. 2, with a copy to the Complainant. The Complainant after completing the formalities, submitted his papers again to OP No. 3 vide letter dated 4.2.2008. The OP No. 3 after processing the same forwarded the papers to OP No. 4. As such, there was no delay on the part of OP No. 2 & 3. The delay, if any, was a procedural delay and was on account of shifting of office of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Wazirpur, New Delhi to Noida, who were to fix family pension of the complainant.  All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

5]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned Authorized Agent for the Complainant and Counsels for the OPs. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainants being an employee of OP No. 2 & 3 and having superannuated from service on 31.5.2008 after attaining the age of 60 years and thereafter, claiming the full rate monthly pension from an earlier date i.e. 16.5.2006, when he had attained the age of 58 years, that he submitted Form 10-D for fixation of his monthly pension and on completion of all necessary formalities, the pension was required to be fixed effective from 16.5.2006, by issuing the Pension Payment Order by OP No.1/4, have all been admitted. It is also a fact that on account of various procedural delays, the monthly pension of the Complainant was not fixed for about 02 years and it was only on 12.11.2009, that his Pension Payment Order [PPO] No. 17285 was forwarded by OP No. 1 & 4 to the Complainant’s banker for payment of the monthly Pension.

ii] The only dispute between the Complainant and the OPs, especially OPs No. 2 & 3 who are the main parties has been the delay caused in fixing and paying the pension of the Complainant after his superannuation from the service of OPs No.2 & 3 on 31.05.2008. As a matter of fact, the Complainant had retired on attaining the age of 60 years as on 31.05.2008; whereas, as per the Employees’ Pension Rules of OP No.1/4, he was to be paid pension with effect from 02 years earlier i.e. at the age of 58 years effective from 16.05.2006. The contention of the Complainant is that he completed all the formalities for being eligible to have the pension in Form 10-D earlier than 25.10.2007 and the OPs were required to fix the monthly pension effective from 16.05.2006 by issuing the Pension Payment Order (PPO), but the same was not done for a period of more than 02 years from the date of submission of Form 10-D by him to OPs No. 2 and 3. The contention of the Complainant has been denied by the OPs No. 1 & 4 in their joint written statement/ reply, saying that so far as submission of Form 10-D is concerned, it was received in their office (OP No.1) on 29.9.2009 only. Further the relevant documents were received by their Chandigarh office on 26.10.2009 for issuing the PPO in favour of the Complainant and accordingly, the PPO No. 17285, dated 12.11.2009 was forwarded to the Complainant’s Banker for payment of pension. Thus, OPs have reiterated that there is no deficiency on their part or unfair trade practice by them, as there has been no delay, whatsoever on their part to process the pension papers of the Complainant for payment of pension. From the contention of these OPs, as well as documents placed on record, it is quite clear that these OPs have only taken about 1 ½ months time to receive Form 10-D and all other relevant documents, process the same and for issuance of the Pension Payment Order to the concerned quarters. Therefore, it is obvious that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs No. 1 & 4.

iii] So far as OPs No. 2 & 3 are concerned, while they have admitted the factual matrix of the case, they say that the Complainant had submitted Form 10-D for fixation of his monthly pension to them only in the month of October, 2007 and thereafter, OP No. 2 forwarded the pension documents to OP No. 3 for further processing of the case. OP No. 3, which is the regional office, found some discrepancy in the documents submitted to them in respect of non-filling of the new SS No. Form by the Complainant/OP No. 2 and on that account returned the papers to OP No.2, with a copy to the Complainant. Thereafter, the actual employer of the Complainant i.e. the District Office of Food Corporation of India, Patiala after removing all discrepancies forwarded the necessary documents to OP No. 3 on 4.2.2008, after checking and verifying all necessary documents.

iv]  OP No. 3, on receipt of these documents, forwarded the same to OP No.4 on 3.9.2009 (OP’s Annexure 5) i.e. after a gap of 1 year and 7 months of receiving the relevant documents from the Patiala District Office of the Food Corporation of India. OP No. 4 after duly processing the pension case of the Complainant forwarded the pension papers to OP No. 1, which were received by them on 26.11.2009. Based on the same, OP No. 1 issued the PPO No. PN/CHD/17285 on 12.11.2009 (Annexure R-2) in the name of the Complainant, fixing not only the payment of original monthly pension of Rs.1391/- but also the commuted value of Rs.834/- per month and Commutation amount of Rs.46,400/- and also arrears of commutation of pension of Rs.34,611/-. A copy of this PPO was also endorsed to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Samana, District Patiala where the Complainant was maintaining his bank account for credit of his pension amount there.

7]      The detailed analysis and study of the entire case clearly shows that although there is no deficiency of service or indulgence in unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No. 1 and 4, as they have taken only about 6 weeks’ time in finally receiving and processing the pension papers and also issuing the Pension Payment Order (PPO) to him. Therefore, no liability can be fastened on these OPs, as there is no deficiency of service on their part. So far as OPs No. 2 & 3 are concerned, they are the real and actual employers of the Complainant. It was very well known to them that the Complainant would be retiring from service on 31.5.2008 on reaching the age of 60 years and that he was entitled to receive his pension with effect from 16.5.2006, on attaining the age of 58 years. Therefore, these OPs, as well as the District Office, Patiala of the Food Corporation of India should have taken prompt and adequate steps for completion of all the formalities for the payment of pension to the Complainant, well in time, so that the actual payment of pension could be made to the Complainant, immediately, after retirement, but with effect from 16.5.2006. These OPs have taken more than 02 years time to process the pension papers of the Complainant and thereby caused considerable delay in ensuring the payment of pension to him. As can be seen from the documents placed on record, in one instance, when the District Office, Patiala of Food Corporation of India had sent the complete pension papers including the family pension case of to OP No. 1 on 4.2.2008 and the same was received in the office of OP NO. 3 on 5.2.2008, this OP took 01 year and 07 months to forward the papers to OP No. 4 for further action in processing the pension case of the Complainant. Even earlier, when the pension papers of the Complainant were submitted to OP No. 3 by the District Office, Patiala of the Food Corporation of India, they failed to check the correctness of the papers; wherein EPF Form for allotment of Security No. (SSN) in 04 copies, duly filled in by the Member and attested by the Area Manager/AGM of the OPs were not submitted and, therefore, the Patiala Office of the OPs was asked by OP No. 3 to resubmit the papers after removing the discrepancies, to the Headquarters, New Delhi, CPF Division, for onward submission to RPFO, New Delhi. It was a serious lapse on the part of the Patiala office of the OPs It was only in compliance with the orders of OP No. 3 that the Patiala Office of the OPs re-submitted the papers after doing the needful on 4.2.2008. Therefore, there is no doubt at all that there has been inordinate delay not only on the part of OPs No. 2 & 3, but also on the part of the District Patiala Office of the Food Corporation of India, which has not been made a party in the present case. Had all the pension papers, including Form 10-D and EPF Form for allotment of Security No. (SSN) 4 copies and other relevant documents, been submitted to the concerned authorities, immediately, at the time of retirement of the Complainant, the Complainant would have been in a position to get his pension, without any delay, whatsoever, which is not there in the present case.

8]      Keeping in view the foregoings, it is our considered view that OPs No. 2 & 3 have been grossly deficient in service towards the Complainant. They have also indulged in unfair trade practice in not keeping the Complainant informed from time to time in respect of the progress of his pension case and thereby depriving him of the pension/family pension for a long time, to which he was entitled, as per Rules.        

9]      In respect of OPs No. 1 & 4, there is no deficiency in service or indulgence of any unfair trade practice on their part, therefore, the complaint is dismissed qua OPs No. 1 & 4. It is also observed that during  the proceedings of the present complaint, OPs have already disbursed the pensionary benefits including arrears of pension to the Complainant as on 12.11.2009, therefore, the prayer of the Complainant in respect of payment of original pension as well as pension arrears has become redundant.

10]     In view of above, we decide the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs No. 2 & 3. We pass the following orders. OPs No. 2 and 3 are directed to make the following payments, jointly and severally, to the Complainant:-

(i) a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the financial loss suffered by him on account of inordinate delay caused by the OPs in making payment of the pension.

(ii) a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of OPs No. 2 & 3.

(iii) a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.   

11]     The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall pay the sum of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 17.8.2009, till the date of realization, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/-.

12]    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.