BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28th day of February, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.216/2008

Between

Complainant : Subramanyan S/o Ponnuswamy,

Karadikkuzhy Estate,

W.P Division,

Karadikkuzhy P.O,

Peerumedu - 685 531,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Santhosh Jacob)

And

Opposite Party : The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,

Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

Sub Regional Office,

CMS College Road,

Kottayam - 1.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT

The complainant was an employee of Highland Produce Company Limited, Karadikkuzhy Estate from 1.10.1988 to 29.06.1998. At the time of employment, the complainant was paying fixed amount to the Provident Fund Office from his wages in order to get the pension. On 29.06.1998 onwards the complainant was not able to continue the work because he was admitted in treatment at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. On 29.06.2008, when he retired from the service, he informed about the pension, the opposite party replied that the pension would be disbursed only after the attainment of 58 years old and the amount of pension is Rs.827/-. After attaining the age of 58 years, on 4.07.2008 an application was given to the Karadikkuzhy Estate Office for getting the pension of the complainant. But on 29.10.2008 a reply was given by the opposite party stating that the complainant is not entitled to get the pension because he is not having a service of 10 years. The only income of 60 years old age complainant is the pension and the petition is filed for getting the same and also a compensation of Rs.8,000/- from the opposite party.

2. The opposite party filed written version and admitted that the petitioner was an employee of Karadikkuzhy Estate, Karadikkuzy which is an establishment covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act,1952.His Provident Fund Account Number is KR/142/2464. The petitioner joined the Provident Fund scheme on 1.10.1988 and his date of exist is 29.11.1997. His P.F Account was settled on 18.01.1999. Scheme Certificate was issued to him on 5.02.1999. The petitioner has applied for monthly pension in Form 10D in 7/08. As the petitioner has not submitted the original Scheme Certificate along with the Form 10D, the same and an affidavit cum indemnity bond stating that no pension is availed by him have also been called for vide this office letter No.KR/KTM/142/2464/801511/AB.5(3)/2008-2009 dated 4.07.2008. Again the application in Form 10D is received in 8/2008 and as per the records maintained by the opposite party, the petitioner has rendered only 9 years of service in Provident Fund A/c No.KR/142/2464. As per para 14 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the petitioner is eligible to get withdrawal benefit since his service is less than 10 years. He is not entitled for pension as minimum of 10 years service is not rendered. Hence the Form 10D received was returned vide office letter NO.KR/KTM/142/2464/802212/AB 5(3) dated 29.08.2008. In view of the facts, the petition does not merit consideration and liable to be dismissed. Hence there is no deficiency in the part of the opposite party.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced from the part of the opposite party.

5.The POINT:- The petition is filed for getting the pension from the opposite party because he was remitting a fixed charges in the opposite party's office when he was in service. The petitioner was examined as PW1. As per the complainant, he has joined the PF at the time of joining in the service itself. But he was retired from service on 29.06.1998. Ext.P1 is the copy of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971, in which the date of leave from the service and date of commencement of Family Pension membership are written. Ext.P2 is the application given by the complainant for family pension. After 29.06.1998 the complainant was not able to continue the work in the estate because he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for his treatment. Ext.P6 is the Medical Certificate issued from Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for the treatment of the complainant. After the retirement of the complainant, when the complainant enquired about the pension, the opposite party convinced that the complainant would get a pension of Rs.827/- per month after attaining the age of 58 years. A claim certificate was also issued from the opposite party's office. The only income for the old aged complainant is the pension. The opposite party cross examined the complainant and as per the opposite party, the complainant is liable for getting pension if the complainant completes 10 years of service in the said estate.

6. As per para 14 of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1995, the petitioner is eligible to get withdrawal benefit since his service is less than 10 years. He is not entitled for pension as minimum of 10 years service is not rendered. Hence the Form 10D received was returned vide office letter dated 29.08.2008 which is marked as Ext.R2. As per the complainant, he was working in the Highland Produce Company Limited, Karadikkuzhy Estate from 1.10.1988 to 29.06.1998. So he had completed nearly 9 years and 9 months of service in the said estate. The opposite party rejected the application for pension for the complainant only because the complainant did not complete 10 years of service in the said estate and as per the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, he is not eligible for the pension. As per Ext.P1, copy of the Family Pension Scheme 1997, the Scheme Certificate issued by the Group Manager, it is clear that the complainant joined for Family Pension Scheme from 1.10.1988 and retired from service on 29.06.1998. As per Employees Pension Scheme 1995, page 621, para 12, clause 9, it is written that Determination of eligible service – The eligible service shall be determined as follows :-

(a) In the case of “new entrant” the “actual service” shall be treated as eligible service. The total actual service shall be rounded off to the nearest year. The fraction of service for six months or more shall be treated as one year and the service less than six months shall be ignored.

Explanation – In the case of employees employed seasonally in any establishment, the period of “actual service” in any year, notwithstanding that such service is less than a year shall be treated as a full year.

(b) In the case of the “existing member” the aggregate of actual service and the “past service” shall be treated as eligible service: Provided that if there is any period in the “past service” for which the contribution towards the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 has not been received, the said period shall count as eligible service only if the contributions thereof have been received in the Employees' Pension Fund.

Explanation – For the purpose of this sub-paragraph, the total past service for less than six months shall be ignored and the total past service for six months and above shall be rounded to a year”.

7. In this case as per Ext.P1, the complainant has achieved a service of 9 years and 9 months, in the said estate. So as per the Provisions of Employees Pension Scheme 1997, the total past service for less than 6 months shall be ignored and the total past service for six months and above shall be rounded to a year. So the petitioner has completed 9 months of service it can be treated as 1 year and so the petitioner has completed 10 years service in the said estate and also in PF Scheme. So it is a gross deficiency in service from the part of opposite party for denying the pension to the 60 years old petitioner who is laid up due to serious disease, as per Ext.P6 certificate. So we think that it is fit to direct the opposite party to disburse monthly pension to the complainant from the period when the complainant attains the age of 58 years.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to issue pension to the complainant from the date on which the complainant attains the age of 58 years and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2009

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - Subramanyan

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits

On the side of Complainant :

Ext.P1 - True copy of Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971(Form 10D)

Ext.P2 - True copy of Pension Eligibility Form given by the complainant for

Family Pension

Ext.P3 - True copy of Service Details

Ext.P4 - True copy of Scheme Certificate

Ext.P5 - True copy of Affidavit

Ext.P6 - True copy of Medical Certificate issued from Medical

College Hospital, Kottayam

Ext.P7 - True copy of opposite party's pension rejection memo dated

29.08.2008 addressed to the complainant

On the side of Opposite party :

Nil