Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.11.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to return the excess deducted amount of Rs. 32,959/- ( Rs. Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty Nine only ) along with 18% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) as compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that as per letter no. 2500 dated 18 July 2006 issued through opposite party no. 2 and 3, It transpires that they deposited with regional Provident Fund officer an amount of 1,39,246/- towards contribution under PPF /1971 / EPS-1995 scheme and balance amount of Rs. 32,959/- of the complainant was retained by trust under head reserve against future contingency. The complainant has deposited total amount of Rs. 1,72,205/- in EPS scheme 1995. It has been further asserted that there is no specific provision under EPS – 1995 for payment of interest on contribution. The grievance of the complainant is that as per official letter the trustee had accordingly remitted only the contribution to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai under EPS – 1995 and had transferred the interest amount of Rs. 32,959/- to the reserve against “future contiguous” pending final decision on the issue. The petitioner has retired on 30.06.2007 and his grievance is that there was excess deduction of his provident fund amount for deposition in EPS scheme from 1971 to 95 scheme which was adopted by the petitioner.
It has been asserted by the complainant that Rs. 1,39,246/- was deposited on amount of the complainant before the pension commission on 06.04.2005 but the statement containing annexure – 1 shows that amount of Rs. 1,72,205/- was deducted from complainant’s account.
The complainant has further asserted that now his pension was settled as Rs. 1,214/- from 20 Nov 2007 but there is no reason to retain the amount of complainant. The complainant has sent a letter vide annexure – 2 to concerned authority of PTI with regard to excess deduction of Rs. 32,959/- but no satisfactory reply has been received.
The grievance of the complainant is that he is a retired person having no source of income and as such the opposite parties are bound to return excess deduction of Rs. 32,959/- with compensation etc.
On behalf of opposite parties a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of complainant of excess deduction. It has been further asserted that complainant was duly intimated that Rs. 1,39,246/- was paid towards contribution under FPS 1971 1BPS 1995 scheme and balance amount of Rs. 32,959/- was retained by the trust under the head “reserve against future contingency”. As the complainant was not a member of old FPS 1971 he was informed to pay cumulative amount from the start of 1971 scheme to avail the benefit of BPS – 1995 scheme. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 1,39,246/- was paid towards contribution under FPS 1971 1 BPS 1995 scheme and the balance amount of Rs. 32,959/- was the interest (by way of penalty) which PTT would have paid, had PTT deposited the contribution of complainant in 1995. In Para – 3(e) and (f) of the written statement the opposite parties have made following assertions, “the amount of Rs. 32,959/- was , however retained by the trust under the head “reserve against future contingencies” because of the ongoing dispute vide which the Hon’ble High Court had passed status quo orders with regard to deposit of interest amount by PTI under the scheme. It is pertinent to mention that as per the subsequent orders of the RPFC, PTI has made the payment towards the interest under EPF – 1995 scheme in the year 2009. Thus effectively Rs. 32,959/- of the complainant has now been deposited with the RPFC.”
“thus as it is evident from the aforesaid facts the amount of Rs. 32,959/- was neither for the use of PTI nor was to be returned to the employee. This had to be deposited with the RPFC but could not be done because of the status quo order operational at the point of time. This amount has been subsequently deposited with the RPFC.”
It has been asserted by the opposite parties that no amount is due and payable to the complainant by opposite parties and no excess amount was deducted from complainant.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder has been given disputing the fact asserted by the opposite parties in Para – 1 to 7. however the fact asserted by the opposite parties in Para – 3 (e) and (f) of the written statement have not been specifically denied and disputed by cogent evidence.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The complainant has asserted that Rs. 32,959/- has been deducted excess without any authority by opposite parties. The opposite parties have asserted that the aforesaid amount had been to be deposited with RPFC but could not be done because of status quo order operational order at that point of time and now the aforesaid amount has been subsequently deposited with RPFC.
It further transpires that same treatment have been made to all the members of EPS scheme.
In view of the facts stated above we find no substance in this complaint petition and as such we find and hold that is no deficiency on the party of opposite parties.
Accordingly this complaint petition stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
