<br /> <br /> <br /> By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed by the complainant to get the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant had joined the service in the year 1969 when the factory was under the management of M/s. Karuna Cashew Exporters. Subsequently the management had been changed and one M/s. S.V. Group had taken charge over the management of the factory. The present owner M/s. Abban Cashew company took over the management from S.G. group. <br /> She had been a subscriber of Employees Provident Fund Scheme from the year 1969 till 1990, vide account No.KR1268/1554. The complainant retired from service on 31.12.2000 at the age of 58 years. The first account No.1268/1032 had been closed. She had been contributing simultaneously for provident fund scheme and the employees pension scheme 1995 from 1991 till 31.12.2000.. The complainant retired from service on 31.12.2000 at the age of 58 years. The complainant applied to the 2nd opp.party through the 1st opp.party for monthly pension but the same has been rejected on the ground that due to non-acquiring the minimum qualifying 10 years service within her 58 years of age. The ground on which the application under Form No.10-D had been rejected will not sustain because, she has secured the required statutory period of 10 years service under the 1st opp.party for a period from 1991 to 31.12.2000. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for relief.<br /> <br /> 1st opp.party remained absent and set exparte. The 2nd opp.party has filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant bearer of Employees Provident Fund and Employees pension scheme account No.KR/1268/1554 joined the scheme on 1.4.1991 at the age of 49 years, and left the service on 31.12.2000. Her employees provident fund account in respect of KR/1268/1032, might have been settled long back and there is no such account number in the record of them. The complainant started contributing to the employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 with effect from 1.4.1991 onwards at the age of 49 years and attained 58 years, of service on 1.4.2000. The eligibility for monthly pension is prescribed by para 12 of the scheme. A minimum of 10 years contribution service within 58 years of age is required for acquiring eligibility for pension while so the complainant had secured only 9 years of service by her service under Family Pension Scheme 171 and service in employees pension Scheme 1995. So that the complainant is entitled for withdrawal benefit specified under para 14 of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Hence prays for the dismissal of the complaint<br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> [i] Whether the complainant is entitled to get pensionary benefit under the EPS 1995.<br /> [ii] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.<br /> [iii] Reliefs and cost.<br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined . Exts. P1 and P2 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Exts. D1 to D3 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points 1 to 3:<br /> <br /> The complainant’s case is that she had joined in 1st opp.party company in the year 1991 and retired from service on 31.12.2000 at the age of 58 years . She had been contributed for provident fund scheme and EPS 1995 from 1991 till 13.12.2000 When the complainant applied for monthly pension, 2nd opp.party rejected the same. 2nd opp.party contended that the complainant has secured only 9 years of services by her service under Family Pension Scheme 1971 and service in EPS 1995. So that the complainant is not entitled to get monthly pension.. The only matter to be decided here is whether the complainant is entitled to the pensionary benefits under the EPS. 1995. The eligibility for monthly pension is prescribed by para 12 of the Scheme. A minimum of 10 years contributory service within 58 years of age is required for acquiring eligibility for pension. That determination of eligible service is prescribed by para 9 of the scheme. According to para 9 [b] in the case of the existing member the aggregate of actual service and the past service shall be treated as eligible service. The total past service for less than six months shall ignored and the total past service for months and above shall be rounded to a year she left service on 31.12.2000. The contributory service rendered from 1.4.1991 to 16.11.95 to the employees family pension scheme is considered as past service . As per para 9 [b] the complainant had service more than six months in the year 1991. It is rounded to one year. Then the past service is round of to 5 years. The complainant is seen joined in the employees monthly pension scheme on 15.11.1995 and retired from service on 31.12.2000. So she rendered actual service for a period of 5 years, ie. The period of service from 1.1.1996 to 31.12.2000. Therefore it is found clear that the complainant has secured the eligible service as contemplated under para 12 in the scheme. In Ext.P2 it is stated that the complainant has retired from her service on 31.12.2000 on attaining the age of 58 years. That means she had completed 58 years only on 31.12.2000. Then our view is that the complainant attained 49 years of age only on 31.12.1991. She made her contribution simultaneously to the Provident Fund and the pension fund until her retirement on 31.12.2000. Here the complainant had remitted the contribution for the year 2000. This is not disputed by the 2nd opp.party. Since the pension benefits under the EPS 1995 is the result of a welfare legislation it can not be denied on citing technical ground. The complainant who retired from service on 31.12.2000 simultaneously as a member of the EPF 1952 and EPF 1995 is eligible to enjoy the pensionary benefit under the EPS 1995 as per para 12 and para 9[b] of the EPS 1995. So that denial of pensionary benefits will amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the complainant is entitled to get monthly pension.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed, the 2nd opp.party directed to give the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 to the complainant from 1.1.2001. There is no order as to cost and compensation. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 16th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. – Rajamma<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Repudiation letter<br /> P2. – Termination order.<br /> <br /> List witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. - K.P. Bala Gopalan Nair.<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. – Annexure – A<br /> D2. – Letter sent by PF Authority to the complainant dt. 22.3.2005.<br /> D3. –Form NO.9<br />