ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

            The complaint filed by the complainant for getting pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 and other reliefs.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant was a cashew worker  of the 1^st  opp.party company which is an establishment covered by EPF and MP Act 1952.   The complainant commenced from service  1965 and was a member of the EPF in the year 1966 onwards and allotted the PF A/c. No.KR/1317/235.  The 2^nd op-opp.party has regularly deducted the required amount towards contribution from her salary and remitted to the PF without delay or default .   She retired from  service on 17.1.1996  and after completing 25 years regular service from1.3.2007 to 15.11.1995 in the Family Pension Scheme and 3 months actual service in the 1995 monthly pension scheme.   After retirement from service she applied for the Provident fund pension in 10-D form through the 2^nd opp.party  on 16.2.1996.    Then she was intimated by the 1^st opp.party she was not deserved to get the  benefits under 1995 scheme as she was not a member of 1971Family Pension Fund Schemes.   Hence she approached the 2^nd opp.party but the 2^nd opp.party made believe that he would soon clear off the liabilities or problems, if any, connected with the same.   Later on, she filed a petition before the Provident Fund Adalath conducted by the 1^st opp.party dated 26.2.2007.  She was heard personally in the Adalath and her application was rejected by the 1stopp.party.  The complainant’s pensionery benefits under EPS 1995 was rejected with a reason that she was not a member of FPF Scheme 1971 and she had not exercised option for joining the EPS 1995 before settling her PF account. Which is not true..  The complainant never opted to join EPS 1995 nor made any contribution towards EPS 95 and EFP Scheme 1971 till her cessation of EPF membership. The scheme came into effect from 16.11.1995 with retrospective implementation from 1.4.1993.  Even though the complaint retired from her service after the pension scheme came into force she was not properly intimated about the benefits of the scheme by the opp.parties till she settled her account  which is known to the 1^st opp.party that the complainant is entitled to get the pension under 1995 and before settling withdrawal benefits.  The cause of action of the complaint has arisen on 17.1.1996 the date of which the complainant retired from her service and on 27.3.2007, the date on which her application or pensionary benefits was rejected and on subsequent days and at Kollam where the 2^nd opp.party  is officiating which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence the complaint.

          The 1^st opp.party filed version contending as follows:  Smt. Rajamma , EPF A/c. No.KR/1317/235 left service on 17.1.1996 as a Non-Employee’s Family Pension Scheme, 1971 member.  Her EPF membership has ceased on 29.1.1997 when the final settlement of EPF account was effected.   Therefore cause of action in this case arose on the day on which the final settlement of EPF account was effected ie. On 29.1.2007.  But the complaint is filed before this Forum after a long period of 10 years during 3/07 and hence the complaint is barred by period of limitation under Section 24 A of the CP Act 1986.The complainant never opted to join EPS 1995 nor made any contribution towards EPS 1995 and EFP Scheme 1971 till her cessation of EPF membership.  He had filed a complaint No.KR/1317/2350710941 dt. 26.2.2007 before the Bavishyanidhi Sikahayat Nivaran Manch Adalath held at the Employees” Provident Fund Organization Kollam on 12.3.2007.   The competent authority   under the EPF Act was verified the concerned file and found that she is ineligible to exercise option.    The complainant Smt. Rajamma was an ex-employee of M/s. K. Gopinathan Nair Company, She joined EPF Scheme on 1.4.1963 with PF A/c. No.KR\1317/235.   f  As per the statutory return in EPF Form No.9 maintained by this opp.party the age of the complainant as on the date of joining EPF is 29 years.  Her date of birth is taken as 1.4.1934.  She attained 58 years on 31.3.92 ie. Well before the introduction of EPS 1995.The complainant’s Employees’ Provident Fund membership has ceased on 29.1.2007 when final settlement of account was effected.   Therefore the cause of action arose on 29.1.2007.  But this complaint was filed after 10 years.  No petition for condoning delay was filed.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.  Hence the 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.   Exts.P1 toP3 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 is examined.  Ext. D1 to D4 marked

Points:

          The case of the complaint is that  she retired from service on 17.1.1996.  She is eligible to get the pensionary benefits under the EPS 1995 as the pension scheme stands came into effect on 16.11.1995.  The opp.party 1 contended that as the complainant was not a member in Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and in Employees Pension Fund Scheme, she is not eligible to get pension.  More over the complaint has settled her Pf amount on 29.1.1997.  But the complaint is filed after a long period of 10 years hence the complainant is barred by period of limitation.  The matter to be decided is whether the complainant is within the scheme of the EPS 1995.  As per Ext. D1 the 2^nd opp.party had remitted contribution only to the complainant’s  Employees Provident Fund account not contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971.  The complainant neither  opted to join EPS 1995  nor made any contribution under EFPS 1971 till cessation of her EPF membership.  Next point the complainant withdrawal the Employ as provident fund amount on 29.1.1997 and thereby ceased membership in Employees Provident Fund in accordance with para 26-A of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952.   As the complainant’s membership in EPF ceased on 29.1.1997 as per para 26 A of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, the present complaint is barred by period of limitation as under Sec. 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Ext.D5 shows that 1^st opp.party had intimated to the complainant about her ineligibility.  Hence from the whole evidence we are of the view  that the complainant is not entitled to get pension.   The rejection of her pension application by the 1^st opp.party is legal.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.   The complainant is entitled to no relief.

In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed without cost.

   Dated this the 29^th day of September 2009.

                                                                                   .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Rajamma

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Receipts

P2. – Termination Order

P3. – Repudiation letter

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. – Abdul Latheef B.P.

List of documents for the opp.party

D1. Authorisation letter

D2. – Form No. 6

D3. –Letter from Central Provident Fund Commission dated 29.11.2005.

D4. – Office letter dated 27.3.2007