DATE OF DISPOSAL: 03.12.2024

PER:  SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT(I/C)

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainants have filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against  the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) and for redressal of their  grievance before this Commission.

2. The complainants were working under the establishment of the O.P.No.2 in different posts and retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The complainants are having the same interests and hence file the disputes U/S 35(1)(c)of the C.P.Act, 2019 and prayed to allow the complaint. While in service, the complainants were enjoying the benefits of the EPF and M.P.Act, 1952 being covered under the same Act and the scheme. There was regular deduction of contributions towards Provident Fund and pension from the monthly salary bills from the date of appointment of the date of retirement in terms of the provisions of EPF of MP Act, 1952 and Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995. The O.P.No.2 after deducting the monthly contributions from the salary bills use to deposits the same with O.P.No.1 along with allied charges and the O.P.No.1 use to avail the interests of the same. After retirement from service, the complainants submitted the required forms for sanction necessary pension in terms of the provisions of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995. Basing on the deposit of Provident Funds and pension funds, the O.P.No.1 has issued PF numbers as detailed hereunder:

1. Dhirendra Ku. Pati                :           OR/1250/722

2.MuraliJagmohanPatnaik       :           OR/1250/799

3.Bhagirathi Patra.                     :           OR/1250/596

4.Santosh Kumar Patnaik.       :           OR/1250/735

5.KrupasindhuPradhan                      :            OR/1250/746

6.PankajBehera                        :            OR/1250/274

7.Prakash Chandra Padhi       :           OR/1250/536

8.Prafulla Kumar Panda           :           OR/1250/244

9.NiranjanPadhi                        :            OR/1250/253

10.Ananda Chandra Mohanty  :         OR/1250/348

11. Surendranath Panda         :           OR/1250/247

12. Narayan Panda                   :           OR/1250/395

13. Rudra Prasad Padhi           :           OR/1250/824

While the O.P.No.1 sanctioned the monthly pension of the complainants in terms of the provisions of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, it had sanctioned less pension contradicting the decision of the APEX court in SLP No. 33032-33033 of 2015 in respect of allowing of the EPS 95 the length of actual salary in pension fund to the retired employees. The complainants submitted petitions through the Odisha Forest Corporation retired Employees Welfare Committee, Bhubaneswar to the O.P.No.1 on various dates’ last being on 18.06.2021 requesting for implementation Higher wage/salary pension under EPS-95 Scheme relating to pensioners of OFDC Ltd. In the meantime the O.P.No.1 directed the O.P.No.2 in letter No.RO/BAM/AC-1/OR/1210/287 dated 29.05.2019 asking to deposit the withdrawal amount for sanction of higher pension. Basing on the aforesaid letter dated 29.05.2019, the complainants deposited the amount as required witch the O.P.No.1 on 07.06.2019 in shape of Bank drafts. In the meantime the complainants regularly approached the O.P.No.1 through the OFDC Employees Welfare Committee for payment of pension on actual salary as perAnnexure-1 but it has not so far complied which leads to unfair trade practice, deficiencies of services causing harassment and mental agony. The O.P.No.1 has written letter to the Secretary, Aska Cooperative Central Bank ltd. Aska directing to deposit of withdrawal amount in the shape of Demand Draft to get the pension on actual salary vide letter No. 77 dated 29.04.2021. During discussion with the Asst. P.F. Commissioner, Berhampur on behalf of the O.P.Noi.1 it was promised for revising the monthly pension on actual salary but though time has passed and the O.P.No.1 received the amount claimed on 07.06.2019, no steps has been initiated hereon resulting unfair trade practice and deficiencies of services causing harassment and mental agony. The complainants file copy of pension payment orders issued by the O.P.No.1 which required to be revised in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 33032-33033 of 2015 as per details hereunder.

1. Dhirendra Ku. Pati                :           OR/1250/722

2. MuraliJagmohanPatnaik      :           OR/1250/799

3. Bhagirathi Patra.                    :           OR/1250/596

4. Santosh Kumar Patnaik.      :           OR/1250/735

5. KrupasindhuPradhan          :           OR/1250/746

6. PankajBehera                                               OR/1250/274

7. Prakash Chandra Padhi      :           OR/1250/536

8. Prafulla Kumar Panda          :           OR/1250/244

9. NiranjanPadhi                        :                      OR/1250/253

10. Ananda Chandra Mohanty:          OR/1250/348

11. Surendranath Panda         :           OR/1250/247

12. Narayan Panda                   :           OR/1250/395

13. Rudra Prasad Padhi           :           OR/1250/824

Out of the above the EPF money of (1) and (5) are still pending with the O.P.No.1 which requires to be adjusted towards higher pension. For the unfair trade practice and deficiencies of services causing harassment and mental agony, the complainants are entitled exemplary compensation. The cause of action is in continuous process from letter Memo No. 286 dated 29.05.2019 of the O.P.No.1 and letter dated 18.06.2021 of the Zonal Secretary of OFDC retired Employees Welfare Committee, Berhampur and hence is within time. The complainants and the O.Ps reside within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Commission i.e. at Berhampur, Ganjam. Alleging deficiency in services on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed the O.P.No.1 to allow EPS-95 benefit of actual salary in pension fund as per order of the Apex Court arising out of SLP No. 33032-33033 of 2015 in favour of the complainants, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- in the best interest of justice.

3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.

4. The O.P.No.1 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that in Para No.1 and 2 the averment is a matter of record which requires no comment. In Para 3 to 7 the averment is a matter of record since there is no allegations made by the complainants. In Para 8 to 17 the issue of release of higher pension on actual salary over and above the statutory ceiling limit is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for decision. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 18756 of 2011 and the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in order dated 03.11.2020 in WPSS No. 972 of 2019 have adjourned the similar cases of granting of pension on higher wages sine die on account of pendency of the matter in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 25.02.2021 vide SLP No. 16721-16722 of 2019 and dated 24.08.2021 vide SLP (C) No. 8658-8659 of 2019 are enclosed herewith for reference. The O.P.No.1 requested before the Commission that the O.P. No.1 will consider the representation of petitioners for release of higher pension and take necessary action as per law after final verdict on the matter is passed by Hon’ble Apex Court. In Para 18 the averment is a matter of record which requires no comment. In view of the above, the O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the case and pass such other orders as deem fit and proper.

5. The O.P.No.2 filed written version. It is a fact that the complainants were working under the establishment of OFDC ltd. Berhampur (C) Division in different post and retired from OFDC service on attaining the age of their superannuation of OFDC service Rule 38. The complainants were enjoying the benefits of EPF and MP Act, 1952. There was regular deduction of contribution towards Provident Funds and pension from the salary bills in every month under the provision of EPF and MP Act, 1952. This O.P. has deducted the monthly contribution of EPF as applicable from time to time and deposited the same along with employer share i.e. EPF, EPS, administrative charges, inspection charges etc. In regular interval and submitted in detail in every monthly return to the O.P.No.1. In fact the O.P.No.2 has submitted form 19 and 10D for sanction of their final settlement and consideration of pension in terms of provision of the employee scheme 95. After joining the members, the O.P.No.2 has submitted Form-5 and EPF account number has been allotted to the person concerned in a regular interval. The O.P. No.1 had issued notice to the O.P.No.2 vide his letter No. RO/BAM/A/c-1/OR/1250/287 dated 24.05.2019 in order to allow the complainants to deposit in shape of demand draft in favour of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional office, Berhampur to get pension on actual salary under intimation to complainants. Accordingly, the following complainants have deposited the required amount in shape of Demand Draft before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Berhampur vide the following Bank Draft No as mentioned against each.

It is not a fact that the complainants have been dealt with unfair trade practice and deficiencies of services causing harassment and mental agony by the O.P.No.2.

6. On the date of hearing advocate for the complainant and advocate for opposite party no.1 are found present whereas the opposite party no.2 absent. The Commission perused the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, written argument and documents available in the case record.

7. It is apparent from the case record that, the present complainants’ have not taken any permission from the Commission under Sec.35 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and out of 13 complainants the rest 12 number of complainants have not authorized to Sri Rudra Prasad Padhy as their authorized representative in the case and to file affidavit on their behalf in the Commission. The complainants’ failed to bring the corroborative documents to the case record as they are complainants and consumer of the opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint is not filed as per the statutory provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence the present complaint of the complainants’ is not maintainable against all the opposite parties.

In consideration of the above facts and circumstances, the Commission dismissed the complaint against the opposite parties on contest summarily. The parties are to bear their own cost.

This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

I Agree

Pronounced on 03 December 2024.