<br /> By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> Complainant filed this complaint seeking EPF Pension 1995 and other reliefs.<br /> <br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant was a cashew worker in the shelling section of the 2nd opp.party institution. She retired from service on 31.12.1996 with valid EPF. Though the complainant applied for her Provident Fund and Pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995, the 1st opp.party rejected the pension application. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for relief. The 1st opp.party filed version contended that the complainant was not a Family Pension Fund member and she did not come under the EPS. 1995. The complainant’s date of birth as per the statutory declaration in Form No.2 stands as 20.1.1932. Hence she completed 60 years of age on 20.1.1992 ie. Before the declaration of the EPS 1995. Hence she is out of ambit of the EPS 1995 and the rejection of her pension application is strictly legal. <br /> <br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get pensionary benefits under the EPS. 1995.<br /> 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> 3. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is Examined. Ext.P1 to P3 are marked<br /> <br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points: 1 to 3<br /> <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that she retired from service on 31.12.1996. She is eligible to get the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 as the pension scheme stands declared on 16.11 1995. The opp.party 1 contended that as per the statutory declaration in Form No.2 Ext. D1 her date of birth stands as 20.1.1932. Hence she completed 60 years of age on 9.10.1992 before the very declaration of the EPS 1995. The only matter to be decided is whether the complainant is within the scheme of the EPS 1995. Though she claims that she left the service only on 31.12.1996 she has no averment in the complaint that her date of birth in the Form No.2 is wrong. Thus the claim of her retirement on 31.12.1996 in quite unsustainable. As her date of birth in the Form No.2 as 20.1.1932 is unchallenged, she doesnot <br /> come within the purview of the EPS. 1995. The rejection of her pension application in this basis by the 1st opp.party is legal. With regard to withdrawal benefit of the complainant under para 32 of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971, the 1st opp.party sent Ext. D2 letter to the complainant informing that they are ready to withdraw her benefit. But she has not yet applied for her withdrawal benefit. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. The complainant is entitled no relief.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed without cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I n d e x <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1. Kochika<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant.<br /> P1. – Termination order<br /> P2. –ESI card.<br /> P3. – Certificate<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – K.P. Balagopalan Nair.<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. – Form No.2<br /> D2. Letter dated 14.5.1997.<br /> <br />