Complaint filed on: 13-03-2017 & 23-05-2017                                                      Disposed on: 29-11-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.31/2017 to CC.No.33/2017 (03 cases) CC.No.37/2017 (01 case)

CC.No.51/2017 and CC.No.52/2017 (02 cases)

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT,

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainants: -           

1. CC.No.31/2017

D.T.Chandrashekar

S/o. Late Thimmegowda,

Aged about 60 years,

Srinidhi, KEB layout,

Near Lakshmi Theatre,

Batavadi, Tumakuru

2. CC.No.32/2017

H.Ramakrishnappa,

S/o. Late Hanumanthaiah,

Narasimha Krupa,

2^nd cross, Siddarameshwara extension, Batavadi,

Tumakuru

3. CC.No.33/2017

Nagalingaiah,

S/o. Shivalingaiah,

Aged about 60 years,

R/o. Door No.150,

Nethaji Road, Vidyanagar,

Tumakuru town, Tumakuru district

4. CC.No.37/2017

Mohan Prasad.K.N,

S/o. Late Narashirajaiah,

Aged 64 years,

Gokul Extension. 7^th Cross, Tulasi road, Baddi halli,

Tumakuru

5. CC.No.51/2017

H.D.Rangaraju

S/o. Late Devagiraiah,

Aged about 57 years,

Door No.181, 1^st Link Road,

3^rd Cross, 3^rd Main,

Kuvempu nagar, Tumakuru town

6. CC.No.52/2017

Nazeer Ahamad

S/o. Late Abdul Jabbar,

Aged about 63 years,

Behind Noorani Mosque,

Upparahalli, Tumakuru

 (All the complainants Reptd. by Advocate Sri.T.Ramaiah) 

V/s

Opposite parties:-        

1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional office, Peenya, Bengaluru-58
2. The General Manager [GM],

HMT Watch Factory IV^th, Devarayapatna post, Tumakuru.

                                                In CC.No.52/2017    

2.  The Divisional Controller, [DC]

Divisional office, KSRTC Bus Stand,

                                                     Tumkur

(In CC.No.31/2017 to CC.No.33/2017, 37/2017, 51/2017 and 52/201-

 OP No.1 Reptd. by Advocate Sri.G.H.Sreenivasa)

(In CC.No.31/2017 to CC.No.33/2017, 37/2017 and 51/2017-

OP No.2-Exparte)

(In CC.No.52/2017-OP No.2 Reptd. by advocate Sri.Shankaraiah.R)

COMMON ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K, PRESIDENT    

Since the 1^st OP in these six cases are one and the same, but the complainants are different and the facts of these cases are identical, so in order to avoid confusion, repetition of discussion of facts and also to avoid conflict of the opinion, so they are clubbed together and disposed off under a common order.

2. These complaints have filed these complainants against the OP No.1 and 2, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

3. Through these complaints, the respective complainants prays to direct the 1^st OP to revise the monthly pension by extending the minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service separately, and to revise the monthly pension by extending the weightage of two years with effect from the date of retirement of the respective complainants; and to pay arrears along with interest @ 12% p.a.; and to give annual relief from 2001 to till this financial years, and to continue to pay the monthly pension to the respective complainants as per the scheme in revise scale and to award Rs.3,000=00 each to the complainants as cost of the proceedings and award compensation towards mental agony, in the interest of justice and equity.

4. The common brief facts of the complaints are as under.

The complainants’ in complaints Nos.31/2017 to 33/2017, 37/2017, 51/2017 and 52/2017 have filed their respective complaints against the OP No.1 and 2 claiming certain reliefs with almost common facts. The complainants were working in 2^nd OP. However, there is a difference with regard to the date of retirement, date of joining and the pension fixed.  Therefore, the same have been mentioned in the below mentioned table.

In the year of 1971, the 1^st OP introduced the Pension Scheme namely Family Pension Scheme 1971 with effect from 1-6-1971. The membership to the Family Scheme was optional. The complainants were opted to join the Family Pension Scheme. The membership to the said scheme was accepted by the 1^st OP and the family pension account number was allotted to the complainants. Thereafter, the 2^nd OP deducted the monthly subscription of the said scheme from the complainants’ monthly salary and the same was remitted to the 1^st OP.

          The complainants further submitted that, in the year 1995, the 1^st OP repealed the Family Pension Scheme 1971 and introduced the new scheme known as Employees Pension Scheme 1995 with effect from 16-11-1995. The 1^st OP asked the complainants to submit their willingness to transfer the amount accumulated in the old scheme to new scheme and the 1^st OP accepted the willingness and continued the complainants in new scheme.

          The complainants further submitted that, after retirement, the 2^nd OP has sent all the service records and other details to the 1^st OP. Thereafter, the 1^st OP settled/fixed the monthly pension of the complainants.

          The complainants further submitted that, in the month of Jan/May 2017, it came to the knowledge of the complainants through one of their colleagues that, there are errors in the calculation of pensions fixed and pension now paid to them by the 1^st OP is lesser one that the complainants entitled. Immediately, the complainants have given representation to the 1^st OP for the revision of the monthly pension, but the 1^st OP has not revised the monthly pension of the complainants till this date. The said act of the 1^st OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Hence the complainants are constrained to file these complaints before the Forum

          The complainants further submitted that, as per the provision of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the monthly pension is calculated for two different periods separately i.e. past service-scheme namely Family Pension Scheme 1971 and present service-scheme namely Employees Pension Scheme 1995 till his retirement. As per the paragraph no.12 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the monthly pension means aggregate of the past service and present service pension benefits. The 1^st OP has not followed the provisions of the law and made erroneous calculation without applying minimum assured benefits. Therefore the complainants are entitled for minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present services separately.

          The complainants further submitted that, as per the paragraph no.10 (2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, it is necessary to give two years of weightage period to the members who superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years or/and who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more. In the present cases, the 1^st OP failed to follow the provisions of the paragraph No.12 (2) of the scheme and the said benefit has not extended to the present complainants. The complainants have rendered more than 20 years of pensionable service and they are entitled for the benefit of weightage of two years.

          The complainants further submitted that, as per the paragraph No.32 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, it is necessary to give annual relief by making valuation of Employees Pension Fund, but from the year 2001, no such valuations are made by the 1^st OP and no annual relief is given to the complainants. The 1^st OP failed to follow the provisions of the scheme Therefore the complainants are entitled for the annual relief from 2001 to this date as per the provisions of the scheme.

          The complainants further submitted that, the period of limitation starts from the date on which it came to the knowledge of the complainants about the erroneous calculation of pension in the month of October 2014. Hence the complaints are in time, since 1^st OP is paying wrongful pension every month, therefore every month the fresh cause of action arises. Hence the present complaints are filed. 

5. After service of notice, the 1^st OP has appeared through his counsel and filed common versions to the respective complaints. In CC.No.31/2017 to 33/2017, 37/2017 and 51/2017 the 2^nd OP did not appear before the forum, hence he was called out absent and he has been placed exparte. In CC.No.52/2017, the 2^nd OP has appeared through his counsel and filed version.

6. In the version, the 1^st OP submitted that, the complaints are not maintainable in the eyes of law, facts and circumstances of the cases, since the complainants’ does not fall under the “Consumer” as defined in the CP Act. The complainants have already been granted pension as per the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, and if there is any variation/difference/shortage, the same can be adjudicated by the 1^st OP under the provision of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 which provides for necessary machinery to adjudication of the dispute.

Without prejudice, the 1^st OP submitted that, many pensioners across the Karnataka State have filed the complaints came out with the similar plea for grant of weightage of two years on the pensionable service from the date of entitlement.  Some of the complainants have reached the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for resolution of the issue.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by its order in SLP No.30844/2010 dated 15-11-2010 has dismissed the appeal with the observation that, Question of Law is kept open and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 01-03-2013 and 23-3-2015 while disposing the SLP (Civil) No.4490-4506/2013 and SLP No.3556/2014 has again observed that “Question of Law kept open”. Again the 1^st OP has approached the Apex court on three occasions and on each count, the apex court has observed that, the question of law is kept open to be decided in a appropriate case. The said observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court manifests that, the issue has not attained finality and orders of the lower forums are subject to scrutiny in appropriate case.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainants are retired employee of the 2^nd OP and they were member of erstwhile Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971. The 1^st OP has been paying pension regularly being monthly member pension as per the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The pension proceeds have been credited to the SB accounts of the complainants. However the complainant being not satisfied with the quantum of pension paid to them filed the instant complaints before the Forum claiming addition of service of two years as contemplated under Para 10 (2) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. It is not that, the complainants’ prays that, they are not being paid pension but he disputes the quantum of it. The 1^st OP disputes the claim of the complainants on the following grounds.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complaint is pleading for grant for weightage of two years with reference to para 10 (2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995. The said proviso is amended by notification dated 24-7-2009 and prior to amendment and subsequent to amendment is as under:

1. Pre amended proviso: In case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and/or who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding weightage of two years. (Pre amended proviso)
2.  Amended proviso:

 “10. Determination of pensionable service – (1) the pensionable service of the member shall be determined with reference to the contribution (received or are receivable) on their behalf in the Employees’ Pension Fund.

(2) In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years (and) and who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 2 years”. (After amendment)

          The 1^st OP further submitted that, prior to amendment i.e. 24-7-2009 that employees who retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation or have put in twenty years of pensionable service than in such a case the member is entitled for grant of weightage of two years as per pre-amended proviso. That consequent on amendment of para 10 (2) of EPS 1995 vide notification dated 29-7-2009, when Para 10 (2) was amended substitution the words “and/or” with and “and”, in such cases, where employees retires after 24-7-2009, he is entitled for weightage of two years provided the employee complies with both the conditions of age and pensionable service, i.e. he must have retired after attaining the age of 58 years and he must also have put in pensionable service of 20 years to get the additional weightage of 2 years.

          The 1^st OP further submitted that, for resolution of dispute the 1^st OP has taken up the issue before higher forum and even up to Apex court and result of which has landed in multiple litigation on the same issue. Looking at the gravity of the issue and in the interest of members/pensioners of employees’ pension fund, the employees provident fund organization, head office, New Delhi has come out with the proposal for extending the benefit of two years on the service rendered by the pensioners provided that the pensioner put in 20 years of service as on date of exit. The employees provident fund organization, head office, New Delhi has taken up the matter with ministry of labour and employment, Govt. of India for accord of consent and the ministry has accepted the proposal submitted by the head office, EPFO, New Delhi on 6-7-2016. On acceptance of proposal by the ministry of labour and employment, Govt. of India, the EPFO, Head office, New Delhi vide communication bearing letter No. Pension -13 (4) 16/7915 dated 25-7-2016 has decided to extend weightage of 2 years to the pensioners with the indicator that for the limited purpose of grant of weightage of two years, Pensionable service will include service rendered under employees pension scheme, 1995 as well as erstwhile family pension scheme 1971 to fulfils the conditions of 20 years or more pensionable service.

          The 1^st OP further submitted that, in consonance with the guidelines dated 25-7-2016, the employees provident fund organization has come up with further elucidation vide circular dated 8-5-2017 and based on which the member is eligible for benefit of 2 years weightage of service prior to the amendment that is upto 23-7-2009 in the following conditions.

1. Member superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more.
2. Member superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years,
3. Member has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the member/pensioner is required to meet the mandatory requirement of completion of 58 years/age of superannuation pension for claiming weightage of two years w.r.t. para 10 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Member who avail reduced pension/early pension with reference to Para 12 (7) of the Employees Pension scheme, 1995 consequent to amendment of para 10 (2) of EPS 1995 with effect from 24-7-2009 are not entitled for grant of weightage of two years for release of enhanced pension.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the Hon’ble State Commission, Bengaluru in its order dated 5-12-2016 while disposing the appeal no.322 to 335/2016 has observed that, “Para No.14, If an employee retires after 24-7-2009, then he is entitled for weightage of two years provided the employee complies with both the conditions of age and pensionable service, i.e. he must have retired after attaining the age of 58 years and he must also have put in pensionable service of 20 years to get the additional weightage of two years”.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, by reliance on the aforesaid orders dated 5-12-2016, it is imperative that complainant is required to fulfill both the statutory conditions i.e. attainment of age of superannuation (58 years) and also completion of 20 years of pensionable service. In the instant case, the complainants have opted for reduced pension (at the age of 51 years) and therefore he is not entitled for grant of weightage w.r.to para 10 (2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and basing on the said ration the complaint is liable for dismissal.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complaint has also pleaded for grant minimum pension exclusively for the “past service” and “pensionable service” rendered under the erstwhile family pension scheme 1971 and Employees Pension scheme 1995.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainants have attempted to mis-interpret the provision of Para 12 (3-5) of Employees pension Scheme 1995. That para 12 of the Employees pension scheme 1995 prior to and after amendment in its entirely strives at regulating pension by considering the aggregate service of pensions rendered under the erstwhile family pension scheme 1971 as well as under new pension scheme. The tenor of the proviso throughout emphasis that payment of minimum pension is resultant of service rendered under both the pension schemes and grant of minimum pension does not stand in seclusion by considering only past service has asserted by the complainants. For the sake of brevity comparison of the proviso i.e. pre-amended and amended proviso (wef 15-6-2007) is referred to.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainants have attempted to misinterpret the Para 12 (3-5) of the EPS 1995 by construing minimum pension of Rs.635=00 and Rs.800=00 and pleads for enhanced pension which is contrary to provisions of Para 12 of the EPS 1995.     

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainant has referred to ration of Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in W.P.21359/2000 in Chennakeshavalu case reported in ILR 2004 Kar2859.   The Hon’ble high order in WP 21359/2000 was challenged before the Supreme court and the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in its order dated 20-4-2010 has disposed the SLP No.3174/2007 filed by the department with the observation that the “question of law is kept open”. It is imperative that with the said observation by the apex court the ration set in by this Hon’ble court in Chennakeshavalu case has not attained finality and another write petition no.44432/2011 filed by pensioners association raising almost identical issues before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka is pending for disposal. Therefore since the matter is under the consideration of High Court this may be treated as sub-judice.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka in its order dated 11-4-2012 while disposing the WP No.22355/2005 connected with 12435/2007 has observed that, “Learned counsel for the respondents Shri.Karikrishna Holla contend that the claim of petitioners in these write petitions falls under 12 (3) and 12 (5) and the same was not interpreted by this court in Chennakeshavalu case. Therefore the benefit extended to Chennakeshavalu cannot be extended to the petitioners as they fall under different category. There is some force in this contention of the learned counsel for the OPs. Therefore we hold that petitioners are not entitled for the benefit extended to Chennakeshavalu by this court in WP 21359/2000. The pension of complainants has been regulated as per para 12.3 and para 12.7 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and the ration of Chennakeshavalu case is with reference to para 12 (4) of the Employees Pension scheme 1995 and as such the said ration is not applicable to the case on hand.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, in the instant case pension has been regulated to the respondent as per Para 12 (3) of the EPF 1995 and on reliance of the said ration, the complainant is not entitled for relief on the grounds that the aggregate pension under para 12 (3) is Rs.800=00 which is more than aggregate minimum of Rs.600=00 as per para 12 (4) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The pension quantified under para 12 of the EPS 1995 in specific to Mr. Chennakeshavalu has been in accordance with the aforesaid para and it is only due to erroneous calculation of pension by the complainant by taking into minimum (Rs.600=00 + Rs.438=00) prescribed in the para by the complainant has resulted in mis-interpretation of the proviso and given room for further claims.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, pre-amended para and amended para 12 of the Employees Pension scheme 1995 with effect from 15-6-2007 results in no change as regard quantification of pension of entitled pensioners is concerned barring a change with regard to determination of eligibility of pension with reference to age of pensioner has been substituted with the periodicity of pension claim/date of commencement of pension. It is explicit from the amended para 12 of the EPS 1995 that the service rendered by the pensioner under both the pensions schemes i.e. erstwhile family pension scheme, 1971 as well as under Employees Pension scheme 1995 has been duly honoured and accordingly admissible pension is being granted to the entitled pensioners.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, consequent on amendment in para 12 of the EPS 1995 with effect from 15-6-2007, the legislative intent of law makers/issuance of notification by central government manifests in itself that grant of pension is squarely dependent on date of commencement of pension only and is further coordinated with period namely

1. After 16-11-2005
2. Between 16-11-2000 and 16^th Nov. 2005 and
3. Before 16^th Nov.2000.

The said amendment with effect from 15-6-2007 has proved to be advantageous to the pensioners of pension fund with the reasons that grant of pension based on age as on 16-11-1995 has resulted in unwieldy process and the law make/executive have removed the lacuna/ambiguity by making necessary amendment as reflected above.

          The 1^st OP submitted that, in the event of any difficulty in disbursement of pension and other benefits or for resolving any difficulty in implementation of the scheme, the central government has authority to issue a direction as contemplated under para 35 and 41 of EPS 1995.

          The 1^st OP submitted that, the claim of the complainants for grant of minimum pension with reference to para 12 (3) of the EPS 1995 invokes interpretation of question of law and resolution of said aspect fails outside the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. Further, grant of annual relief to the pensioners under the EPS 1995 rests on the policy decision of the Central Government/Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization, New Delhi and it is also coordinated with the working of actuaries of the pension fund.

The 1^st OP further submitted that, the complainants have been granted reduced pension and hence they are not entitled for weightage of two years on pensionable service in compliance with para 10 (2) of the EPS 1995. Further the complainant also does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as stipulated under para 10 (2) of the EPS 1995. That complainants have referred to ration of Chennakeshavalu case and pleads for grant of pension in compliance with para 12 (4) of EPS 1995 on contrary rule proviso i.e. pension has been accorded to pensioner in accordance with para 12 (3) of EPS, 1995 and hence the claim of the complainants are untenable and falls short of consideration. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st OP and therefore the claim of the complainants be rejected, in the interest of justice and equity.

7. In CC.No.52/2017, the 2^nd OP has filed version, contending interalia as under:

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant do not fall under the definition of Consumer as defined in the Act, therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The averments made in the complaint are denied as false. The 2^nd OP respectfully submitted that, the complainant has joined the service on 3-6-1976 and he was retired from the service on 31-8-2014. The complainant has already been granted pension as per the scheme. The complainant has received GPF amount. There are no further amount is to be paid and if there is variation /difference/ shortage the same can be adjudicated with the 1^st OP under the provisions of employees provided fund pension scheme. Therefore the present claim is liable to be dismissed. This forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim and there is no limitation to file the complaint. Since no relief is claimed against the 2^nd OP and there is no cause of action of action attributed against the 2^nd OP. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.  

8. In the course of enquiry in to the complaints, the complainants and 1^st OP have filed their affidavit evidence and 2^nd OP in CC No.52/2017 has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaints and version. The complainants have filed their written arguments.  The complainants have filed documents along with complaint. We have heard the arguments of both parties and pursed the documents and then posted the cases for orders.

9. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1.      Whether the complainants have proved the alleged deficiency in service by the 1^st OP?

2.      Whether the complainants are entitled for weightage of two years as per Para 10 (2) and 12 (3) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995?

3.      What order?

10. Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1:          In the Affirmative

Point No.2:          In the Affirmative

Point No.3:          As per order below

REASONS

11. All the complainants came up with the complaints contending that there is error in calculation of the pension. In-fact, they are entitled for the separate minimum assured pension for the past and present service according to the Paragraph-12 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 and also they are entitled for the weightage of two years as per Paragraph No.10 (2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 and also entitled for annual relief under Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995.  But the 1^st OP has not followed the provision of law and made erroneous calculation.  Hence, the present complaints are filed.

12. The 1^st OP submitted that, as per amendment of Para 10 (2) vide Government Notification dated 24-7-2009 when Para 10 (2) was amended substitution the words “and/or” with “and”. If the employee retires after 24-7-2009 and then he is entitled for weightage of two years provided the employee complies with both the conditions of age and pensionable service i.e. he must have retired after attaining the age of 58 years and he must also have put in pensionable service of 20 years to get the additional weightage of 2 years.  The above arguments, is not justifiable.  Because at the time of entering into the scheme by the complainants, no such provision were existing and there is no material evidence available on record to show that the same is applicable retrospectively. The 1^st OP further contended in the that, in consonance with the guidelines dated 25-7-2016, the employees provident fund organization has come up with further elucidation vide circular dated 8-5-2017 and based on which the member is eligible for benefit of 2 years weightage of service prior to the amendment that is upto 23-7-2009 in the following conditions.

1. Member superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more.
2. Member superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years,
3. Member has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more.

As per the circular, above the cases, the complainant is not entitled for two years weightage. The circular issued by the Government cannot be considered as an amendment to the EPS Act. 

13. It seen from the record, the complainants have filed their own memo of calculation disclosing the particulars required from decision of these cases, they are inclusive of provident fund number, name of the members, date of birth, date of joining to EPF, date of exit, age at exist, age as on 16-11-1995 pay as on 15-11-1995, past service period, present service and pensionable salary etc.  

14. On perusal of the records, it is seen that, ALL the complainants have completed more than 20 years service, except in CC No.31/2017. The complainants have contributed to the Family Pension Scheme under the 1^st OP and further opted for Employees Pension Scheme 1995 w.e.f. 15-11-1995 by submitting their willingness to transfer the amount accumulated in the old scheme with 1^st OP to the new scheme. The 1^st OP accepted the same and thereby the complainants in the above cases have continued to be the members in the new pension scheme with 1^st OP. At the time of entering into new EPS 1995, Para 10 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995, it reads as under:

“In the case of the 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 adding a weightage of 2 years”.

          15. As per Para 10 (2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, those who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and/or those who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more, they  are entitled for two years of weightage period. In the above cases, all the complainants except in CC No.31/2017 have completed 20 years service. Hence, all the complainants except CC No.31/2017 are entitled for two years weightage as per 10 (2) of EPS 1995. Since, the complainants have completed 20 years of pensionable service. In CC. No.31/2017, the complainant has either completed 20 years of eligible service or he retired at the age of 58 years of superannuation. Hence, the complainant is not eligible for 2 years weightage.

          16. Further the complainants submitted that, all the complainants are entitled for separate minimum assured benefits for past and present service. According to para 12 (3) to 12(5) of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995, the minimum pension fixed for the past and present service is separate. Further, Section 12(3) to 12(5) of the Family pension scheme 1995 made very clear that separate minimum assured pension for the past service and the present services considered separately.

        17. On perusal of the records, it is seen that, all the complainants are not completed 48 years as on 16^th November 1995.  Hence, they are entitled for the pension as per 12(3) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995. Hence, the complainants are eligible for pension as per Section 12 (3) of the EPS 1995, the separate minimum assured benefits for past and present service as per Section 12 (3) of EPS 1995.

18. With regard to weightage and also past and present service, there is decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of K.Channakeshavalu v/s Employees Provident Fund Organization reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2859, and in a decision rendered by the Karnataka State Commission in the case of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli, v/s Allurappa Hirelal and others in Appeal No.3449-3458/2009 and Appeal No.1134-1140/2010 dated 16.12.2011 and in the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bangalore in Consumer Appeals No.613-656/2012 dated 03/06/2013 and the Hon’ble National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli, v/s Mallikarjun Devendrappa Veerapur reported in 2010(3) CPR 45 dated 29-6-2010.

19. In view of the discussions held above, we hold that, the Scheme 1995 is very clear and the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Redressal Commission, and also the Hon'ble State Commission and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which have considered the similar issue in favour of the Complainants.

20. In view of the fact and materials placed before us and discussion held above, Opposite Party No.1 is directed to recalculate the pension of the complainants in the above complaints as per 12(3) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995 by giving weightage of 2 years to all the complainants from the date of retirement along with arrears of pension with interest @ 12% p.a. except CC.No.31/2017. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000=00 to each of the Complainants as litigation costs and the payment shall be made within 45 days from the date of this order. As far as apposite party No.2 is concerned, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd OP, hence the complaint filed against the 2^nd OP is hereby dismissed and accordingly, we answer these points in a affirmative. In the result, for the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

COMMON ORDER

          The complaint bearing Nos.32/2017, 33/2017, CC.No.37/2017, CC.No.51/2017 and CC.No.52/2017 are partly allowed and CC.No.31/2017 is hereby dismissed. No costs.

The 1^st OP is directed to recalculate the pension of the complainants in the above complaints as per 12(3) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995 by giving weightage of two years to all the complainants and also extend the minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service with effect from the date of retirement of each of the complainants along with arrears of pension with interest @ 12% per annum.

          The 1^st OP is further directed to pay Rs.3,000=00 each to the complainants towards cost of this litigation. 

The complaints’ filed against the 2^nd OP is hereby dismissed.

This order is to be complied by the 1^st OP within 45 days from the date of this order.

          It is ordered that, the original order shall be kept in the complaint No.31/2017 and copy thereof in complaint Nos.32/2017 to 35/2017, 37/2017, 51/2017 and 52/2017.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, then corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29^th day of November 2017).

LADY MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT