By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-

The complaint filed against the opposite parties for the benefit of pension.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant had been a worker in the concern of 1^st opposite party and joined service in the year 1986. The complainant had been regularly employed for the application of pesticides in cardamom plantation of the 1^st opposite party. There were no safety measures in spraying the pesticides which made the complainant a cancer patient. The doctors who treated the complainant advised that the cause of illness was due to engagement in application of pesticides. The request of the complainant to engage her in some other works

were not considered and as a result the complainant was forced to retire from service in the month

of January 2006.

3. The complainant applied for pension benefits through the employer but it was not considered by the 2^nd opposite party. The disability certificate produced by the complainant to consider the application as a disabled worker for pension benefit was also not considered. In January 2010 the complainant was informed by the 2^nd opposite party that the complainant has not entitled to get pension benefits. The reason pointed out by the 2^nd opposite party is that complainant retired from service on 31.01.1998. The retirement of the complainant from service was in the year 2006. The report of the medical board on disability was on 12.02.1998. The opposite party wrongly considered that the complainant retired from service in the year 1998. The act of the opposite parties for not considering the complainant for pension benefits is a deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the 2^nd opposite party to grand the complainant disablement pension along with cost and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

4. The 1^st opposite party filed version in short it is as follows:- It is admitted that the complainant joined the service in the year 1986. The complainant was not tied up to the work of pesticides. The application of pesticides which lead to the illness of the complainant are absolutely false. The complainant was engaged in the plantation of cardamom mainly for plucking of cardamoms from January 1998 onwards. The complainant did not come for work and resigned from service on 06.12.2005. The illness caused the complainant unable to come for the work from 1998 onwards. This opposite party was directed to sent letter to 2^nd opposite party from

DLSA informing them the correct date of resignation and it was informed to the 2^nd opposite party. The date of resignation of complainant was on 06.12.2005. The 2^nd opposite party had to take steps to make the complainant to get the pension benefits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party. The pension application is to be considered by the 2^nd opposite party. The complaint filed against this opposite party is not based on reasons and it is to be dismissed.

5. The 2^nd opposite party filed version in short it is as follows:- The complainant Subaida is a Provident Fund Account holder No. KR/KK/439/1172. The date of leaving service of the complainant was on 31.01.1998 and the reasons for leaving service is “resigned”. The application of the complainant under Form 10 D could not be considered since the disability pension is considerable if the disablement is during the course of employment. The medical certificate produced by the complainant express that the complainant sustained disablement after leaving service that was on 12.02.1998. Because of this the complainant is not entitled for disablement pension and the application Form 10 D was not considered. The complainant was requested to submit Form 10 C which makes the complainant pension at least 50 years age for claiming reduced pension and full pension at the age of 58 years. As a holder of scheme certificate the complainant is entitled to get pension on attaining age of 50 years. Even on unfortunate demise the dependents will be eligible for pension. There is no latches on the part of this opposite party in the granting of pension to the complainant. The complainant is devoid of any merit and it is to be dismissed with cost.

6. The points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties not granting pension to the complainant?.

2. Relief and Cost.

7. Points No.1 and 2:- The evidence in this case consist of the proof affidavit of complainant and opposite party No.2. Exts.A1 to A7, X1,X1a, B1 and B2 are the documents. Oral testimony of the complainant and opposite parties are also considered.

8. The dispute in issue is on the disallowing of pension applied by the complainant. The complainant had been working in the estate of the opposite party No.1. Out of the employment the complainant had to undergo complications of “Choriocaroinama Uterus with secondaries in lung” and she was advised not to continue the present employment. The work was ceased by the complainant in the year 1998. In the absence of any other lighter jobs the complainant retired from service in the year 2006. The application of the complainant for disabled pension was not considered on technical grounds. The actual retirement service of the complainant was on 06.12.2005, application for disabled pension was given by the complainant on 30.12.2006. Ext.X1 series Proforma Annexure 2 of the medical board the disablement date mentioned is 12.02.1998. The complainant had been undergoing treatment in MCH Calicut and District Hospital

Mananthavady. The complainant had been affected the illness out of the employment. One of the reasons for rejecting the application of the complainant for disabled pension is that disablement effected after retirement from service. Though she had applied for pension in Form No.10. The 1^st opposite party forwarded the application to the 2^nd opposite party with all the details and certificate of the medical board. The findings of the 2^nd opposite party that the disablement was resulted after retirement from service is incorrect, the complainant retired from service in 2005, the date of

leaving service 31.01.1998 is incorrect. It is only the date of cessation of employment. It is true that when the complainant was not in employment after 1998, till the date of retirement there was no contributions of her to the Provident Fund. Whereas till the date of disablement there is no due of the Provident Fund contributions from complainant. The 1^st opposite party is the employer. The application forwarded for disabled pension through 1^st opposite party was not considered for erroneous entry leaving service on 31.01.1998. The 2^nd opposite party is ready to issue scheme certificate to the complainant and the application for the same was also forwarded. In the oral testimony of the 1^st opposite party it is admitted that service benefits to the complainant up to 2005 was given. The complainant was in continuous service in the estate of opposite party till 31.01.1998. The documents produced by the complainant and opposite parties and the evidence tendered by the complainant and witnesses it is to be considered that the complainant is badly affected of cancer disease which is caused out of the employment while she was in service. The 1^st opposite party had not shown due deligence in forwarding the application to the 2^nd opposite party for disabled pension. In the oral testimony of the complainant it is also deposed that there is latches on the part of the 1^st opposite party consequently the application in Form No.10 by the complainant was rejected by 2^nd opposite party.

In the result complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to grand disablement pension to the complainant. This to be complied by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 with in one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 31^st October 2011.

Date of filing:28.12.2010.