Adv.for the complainant -  Self

          Adv.for the O.P1 & 2  -   Self

                                  Date of filing of the case –    19.12.2016

                                                                                               Date of order                   -     12.07.2017

           ORDER

Sri A.K.Purohit, President                                                                                        

1.            The case of the complainant is that, while she was working as a S.S. teacher on contractual basis, she become an EPF member vide EPF No: OR /BBS/0012424/0002798 from 01.08.2008 up to 28.02.2014 till she is regularized in her post. During her membership under the scheme the complainant paid the subscription by deducting the amount by the employer   from her monthly salary regularly on every month. The complainant alleges that, after regularization in her post, she had applied for total withdrawal  of the EPF amount with admissible interest in form No: 19 & 10 c, but the O.P. No:1 has not settled her claim although she has sent the said form several times through O.P. No:2 employer. Hence claiming deficiency in service by the O.PS the complainant prays for release of her EPF amount.

2          Both the OPs. have filed their written version separately. According to O.P. No:2 , employer the complainant was a member of the EPF scheme from 01.08.2008 to 28.02.2014 and during the said period her contribution to the scheme was paid by deducting the amount from her Remuneration . After absorption of the complainant as regular teacher, she exit from the scheme and applied for withdrawal  of her accumulated  amount in the prescribed from No: 19 & 10c which was sent to the O.P. No: 1 by the O.P. No:2 as per rules and prescribed procedure. . Hence O.P. No:2 claims no deficiency in service on his part.

3          On behalf of O.P. No:1 two written version has been filed . One version has been filed by one Sambhunath  Parida and another is by Sachidananda Bhuyan. According to Sambhunath Parida , the O.P. 1 has not received the claim of the complainant in from No: 19 & 10c and hence the claim has not yet been settled. According to Sachidanda Bhuyan the claim of the complainant in from No: 19 has been settled for Rs. 50,591/- on dt. 09.02.2017 and from No: 10c has been settled at Rs. 16,359/- on dt.09.02.2017 and the same has been already deposited in the complainant’s account.

4          Heard both the parties. Perused the documentary evidence available an record. It is an admitted fact that, the complainant was a member of the EPF scheme from 01.08.2008 and exit from the scheme on dt.19.04.2014 . It is also an admitted fact that, during the said period she was deposited the EPF amount regularly on each and every month through her employer. With these admitted fact the point for consideration is whether there is delay in settlement of the claim of the complainant and whether the amount settled by the O.P. No:1 has been settled as per the scheme. In support of his case the OP No:1 produced the account statement maintained by him for the EPF account of the complainant , which shows that, the amount settled in from No:19 & 10 c has been calculated as per the scheme. There is no evidence available on record to show that the said account statement has not been properly calculated. Therefore in the absence of any believable evidence it cannot be said that the account statement is not a correct one.

5          It is seen from the documents filed by the O.P. No:2 that, the claim form of the complainant has been forwarded to the O.P. No: 1 since 08.04.2016, but the claim has been settled by the O.P. No:1 on dt. 09.02.2017, i.e. after filing of this case. There is no evidence available on record to show that, the delay in settlement of the claim of the complainant is bonafide. The EPF organization is a social security organization  and its mission is to manage  income security and is duty bound to provide service  within 30 days. But the O.P. No: 1 has settled the claim of the complaint beyond the prescribed period and after filing of this case which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No: 1 . Due to the delay in settlement of her claim the complainant has been sufficiently harassed by moving to her employer several times and hence the complainant is entitled to compensation. Hence. 

                                                              ORDER

                  The O.P. No:1 is directed to pay Rs.50, 000/- (Fifty thousand ) Only towards compensation and Rs. 1,000/- ( One thousand)  to words cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt  of this order failing which the entire amount shall car my an interest @ 8%. P.A. till payment. 

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 12^TH     DAY OF   JULY’ 2017.

      (S.Rath)                                                           (G.K.Rath)                                                         (A.K.Purohit)

      MEMBER.                                                         MEMBER.                                                          PRESIDENT