DATE OF DISPOSAL: 27.10.2020
Sri Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President:
Brief facts of the case summarized hereunder that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. The complainant was working as a worker vide Employee Code No.106088 under the O.P.No.1. The O.P.No.1 issued notice of retirement to the complainant in its letter dated 10.06.2013 stating as advance intimation about date of retirement on dated 31.08.2013. Accordingly, the complainant was relieved from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2013. The establishment of the O.P.N0.1 being a covered establishment under the provisions of E.P.F. and M.P.Act, 1952, the complainant was regularly contributing its share towards the E.P.F. and pension from the monthly salary. So the complainant was allotted with E.P.F. Account No. OR/5244/18 by the O.Ps. After retirement from the service, the complainant submitted Form No.19 and Form No. 10-D for the settlement of E.P.F. money and sanction of monthly E.P.F. pension as per the provisions of E.P.F. Act, 1952 and scheme, 1995. The complainant submitted the aforesaid Forms duly filed in on 30.10.2013and endorsed the same through sped post. After issue of said letter dated 30.10.2013 the complainant wanted to meet with O.P.No.1 to ascertain its dispatch to the O.P.No.2 but was not allowed to meet since a retired person. After retirement from the service, the complainant has no other sources of living and hence only depends in his own money of E.P.F. and monthly pension to which the complainant is entitled. It is ascertained that the O.P.No.1 instead of dispatching the Form No.19 and Form No.10-D to the O.P.No.2 has simply sit over the same with a view to harass the complainant. Similarly, the O.P.No.2 did not took any steps on the letter of the complainant dated 30.10.2013 to collect the Form No.19 and Form No.10-D to settle the same at their level. For non-settlement of the E.P.F. dues and non-sanction of the monthly pension and deficiencies of services of O.Ps the complainant is facing harassment, causing mental agony. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps for final settlement of Employees Provident Fund money under account No. OR/5244/18, for sanction of monthly pension under pension scheme, 1995, compensation Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties. The O.P.No.1 appeared through his advocate but not filed any written version. As such the O.P.No.1 declared exparte on dated 9.2.2017.
4. Upon notice the O.P.No.2 filed version through his advocate. It is stated that on the date of receipt of the notice from the District CDR Forum, this office has not received any claim application in F-19 and F/10-D for final settlement of PF and sanction of monthly pension in respect of the complainant bearing PF Account No. OR/5244/18. From the petition of the complainant it is evident that the establishment did not forward the claim application in F-19 and F-10-D to the O.P.No.2 though the petitioner submitted the same before the O.P.No.1. Hence a letter has been issued to O.P.No.1 to forward the claim application alongwith the required documents duly countersigned by the authorized officer vide this office letter No.SRO/BAM/A/C-1/OR/5244/18/6828 dated 10.02.2014. In response the complainant has submitted the claim in Form No. 19 &10-D. This office has settled the claim in Form No.19 and released a sum of Rs.87,772/- only towards final settlement of FPF dues and the claim application in Form No.10-D has been returned vide this office L.No. 493 dated 08.05.2014 for the following reasons:
(a) Joint pass port photographer not attested by the employer.
(b) Form No. 10-D should be applied in new form.
(C ) All the enclosed documents should be attested by the employer.
On receipt of claim in Form No.10-D duly complying the above requirements the office has processed the claim and sanctioned pension vide pension payment order No.ORBAM00014511 and Rs.723/- per month with effect from 01.09.2013 and released an amount of Rs.7230/- towards arrear pension for the period from 09/2013 to 06/2014 and Rs.723/- per month for 07/2014 and 08/2014 and Rs.1000/- from 09/2014 to 02/2019 to his bank account No.30107447241 maintained at State Bank of India, Bhanjabihar Branch. In response to the rejoinder dated 28.02.2017 filed by the complainant, it is to submit that the complainant superannuated from his service in the month of August 2013. Basing on the contributions received against wages shown by the employer, the P.F. as well as pensionary benefits have been released as reflected in the written submission earlier. As regards contention of revision of pay scale the complainant has categorically mentioned that he is entitled for revised pay but no where it has been alleged that contributions has been deducted/remitted against such entitlement of revised salary. Since the service related matter is purely an internal affair between the complainant and ex-employer, the O.P. has neither any role to play nor has any authority to interfere with the internal affairs. So long contribution is not received against the alleged entitlement of revised pay the O.P. is neither responsible nor any cause of action falls due. Thus until and unless contributions against alleged entitlement of revised salary are received, the corresponding benefit as per entitlement does not accrue merely on presumption apprehension.
5. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant and O.P.No.2 were present. We heard argument from both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and documents placed on the case record. This case is pending before this Commission because the complainant has been paid less P.F. money by the O.P.No.2 without verifying the actual P.F. deducted from the monthly salary. Law is clear that the employee has to contribute his share from the monthly salary and it is for the employer to deduct the same and remit it to the P.F. Organization for maintaining the accounts in an account number allotted to the employee. The claim of the complainant is that there is differences of deduction of provident fund from the wages of the complainant by the O.Ps which has not been taken into consideration by the P.F. Authorities. In case such deductions are not made and the amount is not deposited by the employer, it shall amount to deficiency in service. It is equally the responsibility of the P.F. Organization to collect the same from the employer and in case of failure as O.Ps thereby encroaching upon the Fundamental Rights of Citizens who is already employed. The officer entrusted with the statutory duty does not do the same or do it arbitrarily causing much hardship to the citizens and in order to prevent such arbitrariness. The Supreme Court of India has issued specific directions to all the Government Authorities stating that violation of laws and repeated to dereliction of duty misfearance for extraneous reasons by officers/officials leading to subversion of the law the S.C’s direction we duly complied by the State Government for which the Notification No. 2316 (210) dated 10.08.2009 was issued for more reference to see page 429 of S.C.C. 2006.
The Hon’ble National Commission has stated specifically in the case of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. Versus Sanjaya Gupta and others in R.P.No. 2858 of 13 C.P.Act 1986 Section 2(1)(d), 15,17,19 and 21. Pension-Non payment pension is a consumer law. Law does not make any distinction between Government and Private companies the Hon’ble Commission directed the respondent (Petitioner) to pay the said amount.
On foregoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.
In the result the complainant’s case is partly allowed on contest against O.P.No.2 and on exparte against O.P.No.1. Both the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such the O.P.No.1 is directed to submit deduction particulars of the complainant to O.P.No.2 and O.P.No.2 is also directed to collect the deduction particulars from the O.P.No.1 and to disburse the same to the complainant if entitled within two months from receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 14% interest per annum. No order as to compensation and cost. This case is disposed of accordingly.
The order is pronounced on this day of 27th October 2020 under the signature and seal of this Commission. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
