Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking arrears of pension amounting to Rs.5400/- and Rs.972/- as interest @18% p.a., on Rs.5400/- due to wrong fixation of pensionary benefits and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and for costs.   

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

        The complainant worked as DC in APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur district and opted Employees Pension Scheme-1995.   The complainant had put up 20 years of past service up to 15-11-95 and thereafter                4 years actual service totaling to 24 years.  The wage of the complainant on 15-11-95 was Rs.4250/- and pensionable salary was Rs.5000/-.   The complainant is entitled to weightage of two years and past service benefit as per Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The opposite parties wrongly fixed monthly pension of the complainant at Rs.515/- in stead of Rs.822/- under both counts.   The opposite parties have to pay the arrears with interest from 20-11-10 onwards.   The representations of retired employees association and personal requests of the complainant did not fructify.   The said conduct of the opposite party amounted to deficiency of service and caused mental agony.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

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

        The complainant is not entitled for weightage of two years over and above his pensionable service i.e., the service rendered from            16-11-95 to the date of retirement as per EPS scheme, 1995.   Under the Family Pension Scheme-1971 the employee and the employer used to contribute.   Under the present scheme of 1995 the employee is not at all contributing.   The employer alone is contributing @8.33% of the wages.   The complainant already enjoyed the benefit under the old scheme and as such cannot have the advantage of double benefit.   Eligible service means the aggregate of actual service and past service.  But pensionable service is not eligible service.   The complainant completed fifteen years of service after the advent of EPS scheme, 1995.   New entrants into job after 16-11-95 are only entitled to weightage.   The authorities fixed the pension correctly and need not be corrected and did not commit any deficiency of service.  Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and were invented to suit their case.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.    Exs.A-1 to A4 were marked on behalf of complainant.   No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

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

1. Whether the opposite parties did not fix the pension as per rules and thereby committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.  POINT No.1:-   The deficiency of service alleged by the complainant is that the opposite parties did not fix the pension properly and failed to give the weightage of two years under paragraph 2 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.    On the other hand, the opposite parties contended that they fixed the pension correctly as per rules in vogue. 

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-4).  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.   The above decision is therefore squarely applicable to the facts of this case.

9.  The service particulars of the complainant as mentioned in Ex.A-1 are not disputed.  The complainant had put up 20 years of past service and 4 years of pensionable service.  As seen from Ex.A-1 the opposite parties did not add two years of weightage to pensionable service.  

10.   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 16^th 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 16^th            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.

11.  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 the 16^th November, 1995 and the date of exit to arrive at past service pension payable.

12.  As the complainant retired prior to 16-11-2000 he comes under the purview of Rule 12(V) of Employees’ Pension Scheme and it reads as follows:

“In the case of existing member and in respect of whom the date               of commencement of pension is before the 16^th November,   2000-

i) The superannuation or early pension shall be equal to the       aggregate of :-

a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16^th November, 1995 or Rs.335/- per month whichever is more;

b) past service pension as provided in sub-paragraph (3).

        ii) The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be      subjected to the minimum of Rs.500/- per month, provided the         eligible service is 24 years.  Provided further, if it is less than 24    years the pension shall be proportionately lesser but subject to     the minimum of Rs.265/- per month.”    

13. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that under Rule 12(V)(ii) the complainant is entitled to the minimum of Rs.500/- pm as past service benefit and Rs.335/- towards pensionable service.                     The phrase ‘the aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above’ used in clauses 12(5)(ii) has to be read together but not disjunctively.  In view of the above discussion the said contention of the complainant is devoid of merit.

14.  The complainant is entitled to claim past service benefit as per rule 12(5) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The complainant was drawing Rs.4250 /- pm as on 15-11-95.  As the complainant rendered 3 years 7 months and 14 days (less than four years) and was drawing more than Rs.2,500/- he is entitled to Rs.85/- multiplied by 1.309 as per table ‘B’ and it comes to Rs.111 as past service benefit. 

15.  The pensionable salary was Rs.5000/- and actual pensionable service according to the opposite parties is 4 years.    It was already observed that the complainant is entitled to weightage of                             two years.  On calculation the complainant is entitled to                                  Rs.5000x6/70=429/-.  

16.  In view of the above discussion, we opine that the complainant is entitled to Rs.429/- actual service benefit (+) Rs.111/- past service benefit totaling to Rs.540/-.  The opposite parties fixed the complainant’s pension at Rs.572/- more than the amount prescribed u/s 12(5)(ii) of The Employees’ Pension Scheme.    We therefore opine that the opposite parties fixed the complainant’s pension correctly and thereby did not commit any deficiency of service.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant.

17.   POINT No.2:-    In view of above findings the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.   We therefore answer this point against the complainant

18.  POINT No.3:-    In view of above findings in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2013.

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT

         APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                                                                                                                                                  DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant :

For Opposite Parties:    NIL 

                                                                                      PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.