Date of Filing: 02/11/2016
Date of Order: 27/02/2017
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
PRESENT
SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB …… LADY MEMBER
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 80 OF 2016
Sri.T. Nanjundappa,
S/o. Late Thimmaiah,
Aged About 63 Years,
Nugulabande, Opp. Gangama Temple,
Mulabagal Taluk,
Kolar District. …. COMPLAINANT.
(Rep. by Sri.D.V.Laxminarayana, Advocate)
- V/s -
The Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner,
Old Madras Road, K.R. Puram,
BANGALORE.
(Rep. by Sri. Jayaprakash, Enforcement Officer,
Employees Provident Fund Organization, Kolar.) …. OPPOSITE PARTY.
-: ORDERS:-
BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT
01. The complainant has filed this complaint against the OP Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the OP to re-verify the complainant’s pension bearing No.PY/KRP/00022701 and to re-fix the pension along with 02 years weightage and interest, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
02. The facts in brief:-
(a) The complainant submits that, on 01.10.1982 the complainant joined for service as Group-D servant in PCA & RD Bank, Mulbagal, and after completion of satisfactory service of 31 years through superannuation he got retired from service.
(b) For all these 31 years of complainant’s service, every month the OP has deducted amount towards PF from his salary account and debited to PF account bearing No.PY/KRP/00022701. But after complainant’s retirement the OP has fixed monthly pension of Rs.1312/- without giving 02 years weightage.
(c) The complainant further submits that, as per the Provident Fund Act, 1952 there are two types of pension schemes. One is Employee’s Family Pension Scheme 1971 and another is Employee’s Pension Scheme, 1995.
(d) Further submission of the complainant is that, as per the letter of Employees Provident Fund Organization, New Delhi, bearing No.Pension-1/3(4)16/7915, dated: 25.07.2016, “Government of India benefit of two years weightage to the members under EPS 1995 with membership of 20 years or more under EPS 1995 combined with membership period under erst while employees family pension scheme 1971 should be taken in to account. And as per this letter complainant is entitled for 02 years weightage.
(e) As per Provident Fund Act, 1952 under the head of both the schemes that is, “Employee’s Provident Fund Scheme, 1971” and “Employees Pension Scheme 1995” a person who deposits PF amount for a minimum period of 20 years is entitled for 02 years weightage.
(f) It is further contended by the complainant that, as per the findings of the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal Nos. 415/2008 to 419/2008 it is held that such cause of action is recurring, hence the complaint is in time.
(g) So contending the present complaint has been submitted seeking above set out reliefs.
(h) Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following documents:-
- Copy of the SB account pass-book
- Employees Provident Fund Organization, New Delhi, Letter dated: 25.07.2016.
03. In response to the notice issued by this Forum, one Sri.D.Jayaprakash, an Enforcement Officer of the OP appeared and represented the case on behalf of the OP and submitted written version.
(a) OP contends that, the complainant was an employee of M/s. PCA & RD Bank Limited, Mulabagal. OP further submitted that, the said bank was covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 with effect from 31.12.1997 and had been allotted the Code No.KN/23277. The OP further submitted that, the complainant had been working with the above said Bank from 01.10.1982 had become the member of the following schemes framed under the EPF and MP Act, 1952 only with effect from 31.12.1997. The complaint filed by the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party of PCARD Bank who was the employer of the complainant and is responsible for enrollment of the complainant as a PF member from the date he becomes eligible to become a member. The complainant was not at all a member of Family Pension Scheme 1971 but only a member of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 with effect from 31.12.1997 which had replaced the above said EPS with effect from 16.11.1995. Therefore there was no past service rendered by the complainant. The authority had issued pension payment order No.PY/KRP/00022701, dated: 15.05.2013 sanctioning a monthly pension of Rs.1,312/- with effect from 16.02.2012 in accordance with the EPS, 1995.
(b) Further contention of the OP is that, the contributory service rendered under the EPS, 1995 is only 14 years 01 months 16 days. The complainant had become member from 31.12.1997 and attained the age of 58 years on 15.02.2012.
(c) Para-10(2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 reads thus:-
“10. Determination of Pensionable Service.
(2) In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years, and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 02 years.”
In the instant case the complainant rendered only 14 years 1 months 16 days of pensionable service i.e., less than 20 years of pensionable service from 16.11.1995 under the EPS, 1995. Therefore the complainant is not eligible for the weightage of 2 years under Para - 10(2) of the EPS, 1995. So contending the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint, costs has been sought.
04. On 08.12.2016 complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence along with 02 documents:-
(i) Kuluvaru List pertaining to complainant’s past accumulation from Provident Fund.
(ii) Definition Under Section 6A of the Act under Provident Fund Act and Pensionable (actual) service rendered details.
05. On 20.12.2016 one Mr.Kaushal Singh, S/o. Sangram Singh, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner of OP had submitted affidavit evidence on behalf of the OP. And on 02.01.2017 both complainant and the representative of the OP have submitted their respective written arguments.
06. Heard the oral arguments as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and also the said representative of the OP in the above case.
07. Therefore the points that do arise for consideration in the above case are:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service against the OP?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for ?
(C) What order?
08. Our findings on the above stated points are:-
POINT (A) & (B): In the Affirmative
POINT (C): As per final order for
the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) & (B):-
09. On perusal of the pleadings, affidavit evidence along with written arguments and documents produced by both the parties, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant was served as a D Group employee in PCA & RD Bank Limited, Mulbagal from 01.10.1982 and on 28.02.2014 he retired from service on the basis of superannuation.
10. The main contention of the complainant is that, the OP has not given 02 years of weightage and hence complainant prayed to re-fix the pension by considering 02 years weightage along with interest.
11. Per contra, OP submitted that, only a member of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 with effect from 31.12.1997 which had replaced the above said FPS 1971 with effect from 16.11.1995. Therefore there was no past service rendered by the complainant. The authority had issued pension payment order No.PY/KRP/00022701, dated: 15.05.2013 sanctioning a monthly pension of Rs.1,312/- with effect from 16.02.2012 in accordance with the EPS, 1995. Further contention of the OP is that, the complainant rendered only 14 years 01 months 16 days of pensionable service i.e., less than 20 years of pensionable service from 16.11.1995 under the EPS, 1995. Therefore the complainant is not eligible for the weightage of 2 years under Para - 10(2) of the EPS, 1995.
12. Admittedly the complainant had joined the service on 01.10.1982 and retired from service after completion of 60 years of his service. The complainant completed 31 years of service. The Employee’s Pension Scheme, 1995 Para-10(2) reads as under:-
“10. Determination of Pensionable Service.
(2) In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years, and / or who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 02 years.”
According to Para-10(2) of the Employee’s Pension Scheme, 1995 those who render 20 years of service or those who superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years were eligible for 02 years weightage. Admittedly complainant superannuates at the age of 60 years and his pensionable service is more than 20 years. Hence complainant is eligible for 02 years weightage. The OP submitted that, Para-10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 was amended and those who are attaining the age of 58 years and those who rendered 20 years of pensionable service are eligible for 02 years weightage. This argument is not justifiable. Because at the time of entering in to the service no such provision were exist and there is no material evidence available on record to show that, the same is applicable retrospectively.
13. Further the OP has submitted that, as per the circular of the EPFO, Head Office, New Delhi, the complainant is not eligible for weightage of 02 years. The circular issued by the EPFO, Head Office, New Delhi, cannot be considered as an amendment to the Act. Hence it is not applicable to the case on hand.
14. The counsel for complainant has submitted citation passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in I (2017) CPJ 77 (NC) between Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Another –V/s- Subhash Chandra Banerjee & Another, wherein which it is held thus:-
“Since the bank, in which complainant was working in the year 1971, was covered under Act, 1952 w.e.f. 01.07.1975 and he was enrolled as member in the 1971 scheme, his past service could not be ignored for determining eligible service for the purpose of monthly pension under the 1995 scheme”.
15. In view of the discussions held in the above, we hold that, the scheme 1995 is very clear and by applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, we hold that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
POINT (C)
16. We proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
01. The complaint is hereby allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
02. The OP is directed to re-fix the complainant’s pension by giving 02 years weightage and to pay back the pension arrears along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
03 The OP is further directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order.
04. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
