1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that her husband during his life time was working under OP No.3 and had opened EPF A/c. No. OR/615/13 maintained by Ops 1 & 2.  It is submitted that she is getting EPF Pension vide PPO No. OR/BPS/2131 but later on could know through RTI application that she is yet to get Rs.2, 44,288/- from the Ops 1 & 2 towards EPF dues.  Accordingly she submitted all the documents along with application before the Ops through OP.3 but till date the Ops 1 & 2 has not settled the claim in her favor.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to release EPF dues in favor of the complainant and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and costs.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 filed counter in joint contending that the claim application submitted by the complainant has been rejected since share of the widow (1/6^th) amounting to Rs.11,685/- has been settled in her favor and remaining 5/6^th share was held up for want of claim application in F.20 in respect of other 5 eligible claimants.  It is contended that the claim application of the complainant has been returned with an advice to prefer claim application in respect of children mentioned in the legal heir certificate along with their birth certificate.  As no such application has been received by OP.1, the accounts remained unsettled.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.3 also filed counter contending that the complainant is getting monthly mention and she should get the dues being the legal heir of the deceased employee.  It is also contended that they have forwarded F.20 along with other documents furnished by the complainant to OP.1 for settlement of EPF dues and OP.3 is not responsible for non settlement as the same is under the jurisdiction of Ops 1 & 2.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Head them through their respective A/Rs at length and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case it is an admitted fact that deceased Sidheswar Dhanful, the husband of the complainant was an employee under OP.3 and after the death of employee, the complainant is getting EPF pension vide PPO No. OR/BPS/2135.  The case of the complainant is that she came to know from Ops 1 & 2 through an RTI application that a sum of Rs.2, 44,288/- has been accumulated under EPF A/c. No. OR/BM/615/13 as on 31.3.14 and she is entitled to get the above amount from the Ops 1 & 2.  It is further stated that the complainant has filed F.20 before the Ops through OP.3 but the dues are yet to be settled.

6.                     The Ops 1 & 2 stated in their counter that the claim of the complainant has been rejected since the share of the widow (1/6^th share) for Rs.11, 685/- has been released in favor of the complainant and for want of claim application under F.20 in respect of other 5 eligible claimants, the claim is yet to be settled in their favor.  The Ops further stated that the claim application preferred by the complainant to that respect has been returned vide their letter No.5901 dt.21.2.15 with advice to prefer application in respect of children mentioned in the Legal Heir certificate.  Perused the said letter available on record and the complainant has been suitably advised by Ops at Para-3 of that letter.

7.                     From the above facts it was ascertained that the complainant has already received her share of EPF and is getting pension.  Other 5/6^th shares of children of the deceased are pending undiscussed due to want of claim application in F.20.  The children are yet to file their respective F.20 along with required documents for settlement of their respective claims for which the Ops are not at all in fault.  Further the Ops could not settle the entire amount in favor of the complainant alone when other major legal heirs of the deceased are present.  Therefore, the children are to file their F.20 before Ops 1 & 2.

8.                     In view of above discussions, we find no merit in the case of the complainant which needs to be dismissed.  In the result we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)