Kerala

Kollam

CC/05/259

Pankajakshy,Valiavila Veedu,Mavady.P.O. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional PF Commissioner and Other - Opp.Party(s)

E.Joykutty

20 Sep 2008

ORDER


C.D.R.F. KOLLAM : CIVIL STATION - 691013
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::: KOLLAM
consumer case(CC) No. CC/05/259

Pankajakshy,Valiavila Veedu,Mavady.P.O.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Regional PF Commissioner and Other
The Managing Director,Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd.,Kollam
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN : President 2. VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. This complaint is filed by the complainant to get the pensionary benefits under EPS 1995 and other reliefs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant was a shelling worker, card NO.176 in the Factory of the 2nd opp.party at Factory No.8 at Puthoor. She entered in service of the 2nd opp.party in 1961. The complainant was included as a member in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme of the 1st opp.party and the complainant PF Code No. is KR/1218/758. The complainant had retired from the services of the 2nd opp.party on 31.12.1999 on attaining the age of 60 years. On 19.3.1998 the complainant moved an application for granting pension under the employees provident fund scheme in form 10-D and the same was forwarded to the 1st opp.party. The 1st opp.party directed the complainant vide their letter No.KR/1218/A-10[6]/98/3068 B dt 17.6.1998 to deposit an amount of Rs.8616/- and the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.4000/- on 28.9.99 and Rs.3200/- on 11.12.2000 totallying to Rs.7200/- in Account No.X of the 1st opp.party. But the 1st opp.party subsequently rejected the pension application under the cover of their letter No.KR/1218/758/A-10[6] 2000 dt 27.3.2000 stated that as per entries in their office record the complainant attained the age of 60 years on 1.5.1993 and an amount of Rs.6504/- was paid vide letter dt. 25.7.2000 towards settlement of benefit under employees Pension Scheme. The rejection of pension application is a deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opp.party Hence filed this complaint for getting relief. The 1st opp.party filed a version contending interalia that the complainant Smt. Pankajakshy has been enrolled to Employees Provident Fund on 2.5.1963 and bearer of Employees Provident Fund A/C. No.KR/1218/758. She left service on 31.12.1999. She had filed an option to join the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 on 20.11.1997. She had remitted an amount of Rs.62,000/- towards pension contribution which has been refunded to her with interest amounting to Rs.6200+304=6504 in July 2000. That the complainant had filed a declaration cum nomination prescribed by the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 in Form No.2 wherein her date of birth stands as 1933. As such she would acquire 58 years in 1991 ie prior to the commencement of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and therefore not entitled for pension. Hence the 1st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. The 2nd opp.party filed a version contending that the complainant is a shelling worker in the Factory No.8 at Puthoor. The complainant had superannuated with effect from 31.12.1999. The year of birth of the complainant as per the records in 1939. Accordingly after superannuation she applied for the Provident Fund by submitting the 10D form which was duly forwarded to the 2nd opp.party. There has been no negligence or lack of service from the side of the 2nd opp.party. The 2nd opp.party is not liable to pay any cost to the complainant. There is no cause of action against the 2nd opp.party. Hence the 2nd 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 to P8 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked. Points 1 to 3 The only matter to be decided is whether the complainant is eligible to enjoy the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995. There is no dispute that the complainant was retired from service on31.12.1999. As the complainant was an EPF member in 16.11.1995, she was to be enlisted in the EPS 1995 within time after the declaration of the EPSA 1995 as per provision 6[d] 7[3] and 17[3] As per para 17[3] member referred to in sub para [3] of para 7 shall be deemed to have joined the ceased Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 into effect from 1.3.1971 on remittance of past period contribution with interest therein” Here as per the direction of 1st opp.party’ the complainant has remitted Rs.6260/- [Ext.P4 and P5]. 1st opp.party’s main contention is that as per Form No.2 the complainant’s date of birth is 1933 and she has attained 58 years of age before commencement of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 cannot opt for the membership under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 in view of para 6A. But the 2nd opp.party contended that the complainant’s date of birth as per the records is 1939 and she had superannuated with effect from 31.12.1999. As per Ext.P1 also she had super annuated on 31.12.1999 on attaining 60 years. Ext.P7 is the ESI card in which also the year of birth is shown as 1939. From the evidence produced by the complainant, it can be concluded that the complainant was born in the year 1939 and on 1991 the complainant did not attain the age of 58 years. Therefore she is entitled to get the benefit of pension. The return of contribution amount and non-payment of pension by the 1st opp.party is deficiency in service and therefore the complainant is entitled to get pension. In the result, we hereby direct the 1st opp.party to pay pension to the complainant from 1.1.2000 onwards on receiving the amount of contribution refunded to the complainant with all eligible benefits. The 1st opp.party is also directed to pay the complainant compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost Rs.500/-. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dated this the 20th day of September, 2008. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Pankajakshy List of documents for the complainant P1. – Relieving order P2. – 10D application P3. – Letter from the 1st opp.party dt. 17.6.98 P4. – Copy of chellan P5. – copy of cheallan P6. – Letter from the 1st opp.party dt. 27.3.2000 P7. – ESI card P8. – Age certificate. List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Lekshmy List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Form No.2




......................K. VIJAYAKUMARAN : President
......................VIJYAKUMAR. R : Member