DATE OF FILING-17.4.2012

                                                                                    DATE OF DISPOSAL-8.1.2014

                                                                                     O R D E R

Mrs.Minati Pradhan,Member

            The case of the complainant is that he was working  as a Senior Mechanic in State Farms Corporation of India Ltd.(a Govt.of  India Undertaking).  The details of his service period are as under:

1.  CSF Jharsuguda, Sr.Mechanic                 22.2.1968 to 20.9.1971
2. CSF Kokilabari      -do-                            21.9.1971 to 20.11.74
3. CSF Ladhowal      -do-                             21.11.74 to 29.1.80
4. LDU Suralgarh     Chargeman                 31.01.80 to 30.5.85
5. CSF,Babai             -do-                             01.06.85  to 11.05.86
6. CSF Ladhowal      -do-                             12.06.85  to  05.08.87
7. CSF,Suratgarh      -do-                             06.08.97  to 08.09.90
8. CSF,Suratgarh     Foreman                       07.09.90  to 30.06.2000

            During the service period, the complainant was allotted with the E.P.F No.DL/NDL/3670/802.  He retires from his service on 30.6.2000.  After his retirement he submitted necessary forms,duly filled in, for sanction of Retirement Pension under Pension Scheme,1995 under the provision of the E.P.F and M.P.Act,1952.  It is stated that the establishment where he was working forwarded the said forms to Opposite Party NO.2 for sanction of pension under the Pension Scheme,1995.  The Opposite Party NO.1 sanctioned the monthly pension at the rate of Rs.506/-(Rupees five hundred six) vide P.P.O.No.OR/BAM/1939.  But he claims that he was to receive more and made complaint before Opposite Party No.3 and 4 for revision of pension.  It is stated that the Opposite Party No.4 in its letter dated 13.3.2002 addressed to O.P.No.3 has  stated that while submitting the details of calculations  the period has been wrongly mentioned 1979-1980 instead of 1974-1975.  Therefore, he requested  vide his letter dated 21.11.2011 to Opposite Party No.2 to revise the monthly pension .  It is further stated that the Board of Trustees,E.P.F of the Opposite Party No.4 submitted the particulars in his office letter No.74 dated 17.2.2012 stating that the Membership of the complainant as 1^st January,1975.  Despite available of all such information, the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 did not revise the pension causing harassment and financial loss to the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed this consumer complaint under Sec.12 of the C.P.Act,1986 praying therein for a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 for revision of monthly pension from 506/-to actual along with compensation  and cost of litigation of Rs.30,000/- as a whole for the harassment, mental agony, financial loss and deficiency in service caused by the Opposite Parties.  Hence, this case.

2-         The Opposite Party No.1 entered its appearance through learned counsel and filed written version wherein it is stated that O.P.No.1 generated PPO No.1939 basing on the IDS received from E.P.F.O,Regional Office,New Delhi and accordingly a sum of Rs.506/- towards monthly pension  was released in favour of the complainant w.e.f.1.7.1998.  However, on receipt of grievance from the complainant about revision of pension, it has requested several times to R.P.F.C.,Regional Office,Wazirpur,New Delhi to inform the exact service particulars of the complainant  along with  the revised IDS for revision of monthly pension.   But till date  the O.P.No.1 has not received any information from Opposite Party NO.2 to enable them to revise the pension.   According to Opposite Party No.1, there is no negligence or deficiency in service lies on their part to revise the pension of the complainant.

               The Opposite Party No.2 filed its written version wherein it is stated that on receipt of pension papers  in Form No.10/D and other relevant documents  from the complainant, the same were sent to R.P.F.C.,Berhampur for preparation and calculation of pension.  The pension was calculated on the basis of Form No.8PS submitted by M/s State Farms Corporation of India Ltd.,Nehru Place,New Delhi(Opposite Party No.4) wherein pension contribution was reflected from the year 1979-80 to 30.6.1996.  It is denied to have received  letters dt.30.7./2002 , 6.8.2002 ,13.3.2002 and a petition dt.21.11.22011.   A photo copy of the letter dated 17.2.2012 was received and that to without enclosures.  The pension of the complainant could not be revised in absence of documentary proof viz.Form No.8PS and Bank challan for  depositing EPS contribution for the period 1974 to 1978-79.  However, it is stated that the Opposite Party No.4 has been requested to send  Form No.7PS and  proof of payment  followed by two reminders on 23.4.13 and 2..5.13, but  the O.P.No.4 has not sent any information for which revision of pension  has not been done.   According to Opposite Party No.2, there is no deficiency in service on their part to consider the claim of the complainant for which the case is liable to be dismissed against them.

                The Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 in their joint written version have stated that there is no claim against them.  However, they have stated that  the required papers have already been sent to Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 since long back to enable them to release proper pensionery dues to the complainant.  According to Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4, since they have been impleaded as proforma parties, therefore they should be exonerated from the dispute.   

3-         The complainant as well as the Opposite Parties in support of their cases have filed certain documents  which are placed on record.  On the date of hearing learned counsel for the  complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 participated the hearing.  Although the Opposite Parties Nos.2, 3 and 4 filed their respective written versions but did not participate on hearing.  Heard the learned counsels appearing for the complainant as well as Opposite Party No.1.  We have perused the documents filed on record by the respective parties.  We have also gone through the memo of arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant.  It is not disputed that the complainant was working  under the establishment of Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 and posted in different places during his entire service period.  It is also not disputed that the complainant was a member of the E.P.F Organisation and  he was allotted E.P.F.No.DL/NDL/3670/802.  He retires from his service on 30.6.2000.  He submitted all his papers for pension benefits to Opposite Party No.2 for sanction of his pension under Pension Scheme,1995.  Since the complainant is staying under the jurisdiction of Opposite Party No.1, the  pension was sanctioned by O.P.No.1 at the rate of Rs.506/- vide P.P.O.NO.OR/BAM/1939.  It is alleged by the complainant that his pension should be more than that he is getting and requested to Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 for revision of his pension on the basis of calculations to be made 1974-75 as shown 1979-80.  In this regard Opposite Party No.4 in its letter dt.13.3.2002 clearly written to Opposite Party No.2 to revise the pension accordingly. But that was not considered.  Similarly, the Opposite Party No.2 in its letter dated 17.2.12 wrote to  Opposite Party No.2 giving  details of the date of commencement of membership of Family Pension Fund enclosing therein the  copy of Contribution Card i.e. Form No.7(FPF) of the complainant.  Neverthless, the family pension of the complainant was not revised.  On the other hand,  in the written version the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 have denied to have received any calculation details from the Opposite Party No.3 and 4 for which they could not able to revise the pension.  Therefore, it is clearly inferred that there is latches on the part of the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in considering the case of the complainant .   However, we  are of the lenient view upon the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 and hold that they are liable to revise the family pension in favour of the complainant, if the complainant is actually entitled to get the same,  on the basis of the Family Pension Scheme after receipt of detail information from the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4.

4-         In the result, we allow the case of the complainant and direct the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4 to send the detail information to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, to enable them to revise the  Pension in favour of the complainant At the same time, we also direct the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to revise the pension on the basis of the Family Pension Scheme, in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of detail information from Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4.  Under the above circumstances, we are not inclined to award any compensation in favour of the complainant.

            The instant case is accordingly disposed of without any order as to cost.  Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.

            Dictated and corrected by me on this  8^th day of January,2014.

           Sd/-N.Tuna Sahu               Sd/-Soubhagyalaxmi Pattnaik      Sd/-Minati Pradhan

            I AGREE(MEMBER)          I AGREE( PRESIDENT)        MEMBER