By Adv. Ravi Susha, Member

This complaint is filed  by the complainant for getting pensionary benefit under the EPS 1995 and for other reliefs.

          The averments  in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant was a cashew worker under the 1^st opp.party’s institution .  She retired from service in the year 1997 on attaining 60 years having Account No.KR-1125/59/A-12[4].  The complainant had valid EPF membership.  Though the complainant applied for her pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995, the 1^st opp.party rejected her pension application.  Hence she approached the Forum for relief.

          The first opp.party filed a version contending that  the complainant was a shelling worker of the opp.party.   As per the official records such as ESI and Gratuity maintained by the opp.party.  The complainant has attained the age of 60 years on 31.12.1996.   She had super annuated with effect from 31.12.1996.  On 10.2.1996 10D form was forwarded to the 2^nd opp.party.   The application was rejected and returned to the complainant stating that she had attained the age of 60 years in 1986 itself.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opp.party.  Hence the 1^st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

          The 2^nd opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complainant Smt. Chellamma bearing Employees’ Provident Fund Account No.KR/1185/59 was not a member of the erstwhile Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 or the existing Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995.   She had applied for Pension during July 2000 and the same was rejected for want of valid option.  This position was communicated to her vide this office letter dated 25.7.2000.  The Employees Provident Fund account of the complainant was settled in 2000.   The present complaint is barred by period of limitation as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.The complainant did not file option to join the 1971 scheme and remitted the contributions.  The complainant do not come under any of the category specified under para 6 and therefore not eligible for membership in Employees Pension Scheme 1995..  Hence the 2^nd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether the complainant is entitled to get the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995

2.     Whether  there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

3.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.   Ext. P1 is marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 is Examined.  Ext. D1 to D4 are marked.

Points 1 to 3

          The case of the complaint is that she retired from service in the year 1997.  She is eligible to get the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 as the Pension  Scheme  stands came into effect on 16.11.1995.  Opp.party 2 contended that as the complainant was not a member in Employees Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971 and in Employees Pension Fund Scheme 1995, she is not eligible to get pension.   The only matter to be decided is whether the complainant is within the Scheme of the EPS 1995.   As per Ext.D3. the complainant did not join in Employees Family Pension Scheme and not contributed to the said scheme.   The complainant did not join in the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.  The complainant settled her Employees Provident Fund account in 2000 and thereby ceased membership in Employees Provident Fund in accordance with para 26-A of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952,  As the complainant’s membership in Employees Provident Fund ceased in 2000 the present complaint is barred by limitation as per section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.   Ext.D1 shows that opp.party had intimated to the complainant about her inability to get pension.  From the whole evidence we are of the view that the complainant is not  entitled to get pension.   The rejection of her pension application by the 1^st opp.party is legal.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.   The complainant is entitled to no relief.

          In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without cost.

          Dated this the  30^TH        day of December, 2008.

I N D E X

List of witness for the complainant

PW.1. -  Chellamma

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Termination order.

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. – Balagopalan Nair

List of documents for the opp.party

D1. – Letter sent by PF commissioner to the complainant

D2. – Photocopy of High Court Order

D3. – Form 6A

D4. – PF contribution.