Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking fixation of his pension at Rs.2,378/- pm from 01-12-10; payment of  Rs.12,780/-  being the arrears of pension from 02-12-10 to 01-03-12 (inclusive of interest) and Rs.10,000/- as compensation besides costs. 

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant worked as a conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Repalle depot, Guntur district.   The complainant had put up 10 years service upto 15-11-95 and 15 service thereafter till his retirement totaling to 25 years of service.   The complainant is a member of the family pension scheme, 1971 and paid his hard earned money to the said pension scheme.  The opposite parties failed to calculate the past service and past service contributions.  The complainant opted the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.   The opposite parties failed to give weightage of two years under paragraph 10 (2) of The  Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and wrongly fixed the pension as Rs.1656/- instead of Rs.2378/-.   The opposite parties have to pay Rs.10,830/- (the difference of pension) plus Rs.1950/- being interest on it at 18% p.a.   The opposite parties failed to give weightage for the past service in spite of several representations by the complainant through retired employees association.   The opposite parties neither rejected the claim nor informed its attitude either to the complainant or to the retired employees association.   The attitude of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service.   The above attitude of the opposite parties caused mental agony to the complainant and estimated the same at Rs.10,000/-.   The complaint therefore be allowed.       

3.   The contention of the opposite parties in nutshell is thus:

        The complainant is not entitled for weightage of two years over and above his pensionable service.   The complainant completed 15 years of service only after the advent of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.  New entrants after 1995 alone are entitled to the benefit of weightage.   The complainant wrongly interpreted the provision of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of complainant.   No documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

        1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of                                 service?

        2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

        3.  To what relief?

6.   POINT No.1:   The service particulars of the complainant and fixation of pension at Rs.1,656/- p.m., are not in dispute.  The opposite parties did not give the benefit of weightage of two years in fixing complainant’s pension as per their version.  The deficiency of service alleged by the complainant is that the opposite parties failed to give the weightage of two years under paragraph 2 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.   

7.     The complainant relied on the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported in the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka vs. Mallikharjuna Devendrappa, Verapur (RP No.3970 of 2009) decided on 21-08-09 (Ex.A-5).     In the said case the complainant therein had put up 24 years service as on 15-11-95 and thereafter 8 years after 15-11-95 prior to his retirement.   The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission considered the aspect of actual service, existing member, past service as defined under rule 2(ii), (vi), (xii), eligible service as defined under the manual of accounting procedure and rules 10(2) and 12(3) and (4) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 and held that the complainant therein was entitled to two years weightage under rule 10(2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.    

8.   Rule 9 (b) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 says that past service also shall be treated as eligible service if the employee contributed towards Employees’ pension fund.  It is not the case of the opposite parties that the complainant did not contribute towards Family Pension Scheme, 1971.   Therefore, the complainant is entitled to past service benefit also in our considered opinion.  

9.   Rule 12 (3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme as substituted by G.S.R. 431 (E) dated the 15^th June, 2007 was given retrospective affect from 16-11-95 and it reads as follows (43^rd Edition – February, 2012 published by M/s Madras Book Agency):

         “(3) In the case of an existing member in respect of whom the        date of commencement of pension is after 16th November, 2005:

(i) Superannuation or early pension shall be equal to the                          aggregate of: -

        (a) Pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the               period of Pensionable service rendered from the 16th            November, 1995 or Rs 635/- per month whichever is more;

        (b) Past service pension shall be as given below: -

        The past service pension payable on completion of 58 years of age on the 16^th November, 1995.

        The amount under column (2) or (3) above, as the case may be, shall be multiplied by the factor given in Table ‘B’ corresponding to the period between 16the November, 1995 and the date of exit to arrive at past service pension payable.

(ii) The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be subject to a minimum of Rs. 800/- per month, provided the eligible service is 24 years. Provided, further if it is less than 24 years, the pension as computed above shall be reduced proportionately subject to a minimum of Rs. 450/- per month”.

10.   The opposite parties fixed the pension at Rs.1,656/- instead of Rs.1,578/- as mentioned by the complainant in paragraph 2 of his complaint for the service rendered after 16-11-95.  The complainant arrived at Rs.1578/- by adding two years weightage.  It can therefore be said that the opposite parties had fixed the pension commencing from 16-11-95 considering weightage of two years though not mentioned in Ex.A-3.  

11.      This Forum had already observed that the complainant is entitled to claim past service benefit also.  The complainant claimed past service benefit at Rs.800/-.  The opposite parties did not deny the quantum of past service benefit.   This Forum has to see whether the complainant claimed the past service correctly or not.   The period of past service has to be calculated from 16-11-95 to the date of exit of the complainant i.e., 30-11-2010 (completion of 58 years) as per paragraph 12(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.   On calculation it came to 15 years 14 days i.e., less than sixteen years.  The complainant was drawing Rs.3030/- pm as on 15-11-95.  As the complainant rendered below 16 years of past service and was drawing more than Rs.2,500/- he is entitled to Rs.135/- pm multiplied by 3.296 as per table ‘B’ and it comes to 135x3.296=Rs.444.96ps or Rs.445/- pm (after rounding off to near rupee) as past service benefit.  The contention of the complainant is that he is entitled to Rs.800/- pm towards benefit of past service is devoid of merit.  

12.    The opposite parties are paying Rs.1656/- pm as mentioned by the complainant in paragraph 3.  The complainant in paragraph 2 mentioned the pensionable service at Rs.1578/-.  The complainant is entitled to the past service benefit of Rs.445/- pm from 01-12-10 instead of Rs.800/-.  In all the complainant is entitled to Rs.1578/- + Rs.445/- = Rs.2023/-.  But the complainant is receiving Rs.1656/- only per month.   The difference therefore is Rs.367/- pm (Rs.2023-Rs.1656).

13.  It is the duty of the opposite parties to fix the pension as per the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 irrespective of particulars mentioned by any pensioner in his application.  In this case the opposite parties did not fix pension of the complainant as per the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.   Therefore we opine that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and answer this point in favour of the complainant.  

14.   POINT No.2:-    The complainant claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation.  The complainant prior to filing this complaint sent Ex.A-1 notice under registered post on 01-02-12.  The complainant did not place any material before this Forum that they earlier requested the opposite parties.  Under Ex.A-1 the complainant’s contention is that the opposite parties did not give weightage of two years.  The said contention is incorrect in view of the calculation made by the complainant in paragraph 2 of the complaint.   The complainant did not claim any past service benefit under Ex.A-1 notice.  Under those circumstances, we are of the considered opinion no compensation and interest on arrears of pension need be awarded.  Hence we answer  this point accordingly against the complainant.

15.  POINT No.3:-    In view of above findings in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1.  The opposite parties are directed to fix the pension of the                   complainant at Rs.2023/- p.m., raising from Rs.1656/-                     (earlier fixed) with effect from 01-12-10.

2. The opposite parties are directed to pay arrears @Rs.367/-                   per month till fixation of pension at Rs.2023/- pm.

3.  There is no order as to costs.  

4.  The above order shall be complied within a period of six                      weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order                      failing which it carries interest @9% p.a., from the date of                      complaint.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 14th day of November, 2012.

            MEMBER                                                                                       PRESIDENT

         APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                            DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant :

For Opposite Party:    NIL 

                                                                                      PRESIDENT