<br /> <br /> By Adv. RAVISUSHA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint is filed by the complainant for getting pensionary benefits under EPS 1995 and for other reliefs<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant was an employee of Prasanthy Cashew Factory, Mulavana. She was working in the shelling section. She was super annuated in 31.12.1997. She was entitled to every benefit including PF and pension. The 1st opp.party filed version contending that the complainant joint Employees Provident Fund with effect from 31.3.1963 and at the time of joining service she had executed a statutory declaration cum - nomination dated 27.11.1963 in Form No.2 and she was not a Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971 member or Employees Pension Scheme 1995 member. As per statutory declaration in Form No.2, she completed sixty years on 10.12.1992 ie prior to the introduction of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Hence she is not eligible for pension.<br /> <br /> The 2nd opp.party remains absent. <br /> <br /> <br /> The points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> [i] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.<br /> [ii] Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined and Ext.P1 to P2 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined and Ext.D1 to D3 are marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> Points [1] & [2]:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that she was joint as worker in the shelling section in the 2nd opp.party till 31.12.1997 and is eligible for pension under EPS 1995. As per opp.party she completed sixty years on 10.121992 prior to the introduction of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Hence she is not eligible for pension. As a matter of fact no material was produced to show that the complainant was a subscriber to the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971. For proving her date of birth the complainant produced Ext.P1. From Ext.P1 the complainant had completed 58 years .A pension would not come within the ambit of Employees Pension Scheme 1995.<br /> <br /> The 1st opp.party argued that the complainant is not entitled to get pension as she is a non family Pension Scheme 1971 member who ceased membership in Employees Provident Fund prior to the introduction of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Even though she had retired after 1.4.1993, she did not give option for getting pensionary benefit of Employees Pension Scheme 1995.<br /> <br /> The complaint ant joined the Employees Provident Fund Scheme on 31.3.1963. She did not join the Family Pension Scheme 1971. The new Employees Pension Scheme 1995 came into existence with effect from 16.11.1995 replacing the Family Pension Scheme 1971. Membership in Employees Pension Scheme 1995 is governed by paras 6 and 6A. On a reading of the above paras it can be seen that non Family Pension Fund members whose Employers Provident Fund Membership ceased prior to 16.11.1995 are not eligible for membership under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to the benefit of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence in this case we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get Family Pension as prayed for. Point found accordingly.<br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant:<br /> PW.1. – KUNJU KUNJU<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – ESI card<br /> P2. – Termination order.<br /> <br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – K.P. Bala Gopalan Nair<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. – Authorisation letter.<br /> D2. – Form No.2 Declaration<br /> D3. – Letter sent by PF Authority to the 2nd opp.party.<br /> <br /> <br />