1. The case of the complainant is that he being an employee of O.P. No.1, is a subscriber of EPF scheme under O.P.No.2 vide P.F. account no. ORBAM000059900A0000184 and UAN No. 100174194089.  The allegations of complainant is that after completion of 58 years, he submitted pension claim with the O.P. No.2 on dated 22.08.2019 but the same was rejected on 06.09.2019 and 30.01.2020 due to want of wages details for last 60 months and proper certificate i.e. correct 10 D form vide the O.P.No.2 office letter no. 630 dated 14.06.2018.  Further it is alleged that the O.P. No.1 has not drawn the increments due to him for the period of 01.06.2019 and 01.06.2020, whereas the increment was already sanctioned by the O.P. No.1 vide office letter no. 3731 dated 01.06.2018 which was not reflected in the pay particulars, and also on medical grounds complainant availed leave for the period from 16.12.2020 to 31.12.2020, but the same were not sanctioned.  Further alleged that he joined under the O.P.No.1 as Supervisor and entitled for RACP benefits rising his basic pay to Rs. 2,800/- and Rs. 4,200/- after completion of 10 & 20 years respectively as per Order No. XIV-36/12(pt) 25742 dated 27.11.2019 of Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Odisha and also he is entitled the benefits under 7^th Pay Commission.  Further alleged that it is the duty of O.P.No.1 to deduct and draw the correct EPF contributions of employer and employee as per the office letter no. 158/(Bkg)) dated 29.01.2021 of Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Jeypore, and since the same has not been done properly, he suffers from mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss and with other allegations, showing deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, he knocks the door of this Commission with a prayer to direct the O.P.No.1 to sanction the periodical increment of 01.06.2019 and 01.06.2020, sanction of leave from 16.12.2020 to 31.12.2020 and the benefits of RACP alongwith 7^th Pay Commission, to send the proper 10 D form for sanction of pension to the O.P. No.2 and also prays for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards costs of litigation.
    
2. O.P. No.1 appeared through their Ld. Counsel, filed their counter version admitting the service of complainant under them, but have denied the allegations contending that the complainant was deputed as Managing Director to Bonda LAMPS as per their Office order no. 5717 dated 23.01.2019 and during such period, complainant has not submitted the absentee statement to draw his salary and since his service was not regular, his increment due on 01.06.2019 was pending.  Further contended that during his tenure at Sikhpali LAMPS, as per order of the Collector – cum – District Magistrate, the Administrator of that LAMPS vide his letter no. 114 dated 25.03.2020 has instructed to stop the absentee statement which were submitted earlier for release of his salary, however as per letter no. 27 dated 21.05.2020 of the Administrator of Sikhpalli LAMPS, his salary has been drawn and regularized and the benefits of 7^th Pay Fitment was also made applicable to him and the earned leave for the period from 16.12.2020 to 31.12.2020 also sanctioned in his favour as arrear.  Further contended that as per letter no. 835 dated 01.03.2019 of D.R.C.S, Jeypore Division, Jeypore, the RACP was not considered for the complainant due to initiation of one vigilance case vide Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case no. 42 dated 26.12.2018.  It is also contended that due to his own negligence and irregular service, the complainant submits his absentee statement once at a time for several period and accordingly, the EPF subscription were deducted in same manner and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
3. O.P. No.2 send their counter version admitting the membership of complainant under them vide no. OR/BAM/599-A/184, but have denied the allegations contending with the only submission that the O.P. No.1 has not provided them the wage particulars for last 60 months to release the pension claim alongwith other relevant documents inspite of their letter no. 2264 dated 16.01.2020, hence showing their no deficiency in service, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
4. Parties have filed their respective documents in order to support their cases.   Perused the record and materials available therein.

5. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was working under the O.P. No.1 on different posts from time to time and was also an EPF subscriber under the O.P. No. 2.  The allegations of complainant is that the O.P.No.1, being the employer, it is duty on his part to deduct the EPF subscriptions on monthly basis and to send the pay particulars on monthly basis for the last 60 months, whereas the O.P. No.1 has contended that since the service of complainant was irregular and the salary of complainant was drawn accordingly and it is the duty of complainant to send the absentee statement to them for release of salary and on basis of which, the EPF subscription can be deducted, on the other hand the O.P. No.2 has contended that since the O.P. No.1 has not provided them the wage particulars for the last 60 months, they could not release the pension claim.  Further during hearing, it is ascertained from the parties that the absentee statement in connection of service of the Complainant was not properly sent to the O.P. No.1 within time period, which is a result of non submission of pension papers i.e. Form 10 D to the O. P. No. 2.  In this connection, it is our view that though the Complainant is the concerned authority to sent the absentee statement to the O.P. No.1, but it is also the duty on the part of O.P. No.1, being the DDO, to collect the absentee statement from each of the employees of the LAMPS under them, as every employees has legal rights to get their salary within stipulated time, if not any dispute exist. In this present case, the salary of Complainant has been stopped for a limited period only for 3 months i.e. from 25.03.2020 to 21.05.2020 which is ascertained from the letter no. 114 dated 25.03.2020 and Memo no. 28 dated 21.05.2020 and it is also ascertained that the absentee statements of the complainant was sent to the O.P. No.1 month wise for the purpose of drawing the salary and the purpose of EPF subscription.Hence we think, it was the duty on the part of the O.P. No. 1 to send the details of the pay particulars of complainant to the O.P. No.2 during sending the Form D alongwith other documents.
   
   Further it is seen from the documents filed by the parties that the O.P. No.1 send the Form D alongwith other relevant documents to the O.P. No.2 vide their letter no. 2231 dated 17.08.2019, but the same was rejected for on dated 06.09.2019.Whereas as per the letter no. 2264 dated 16.01.2020 of the O.P. No.2 asked for the 60 months wages particulars, and accordingly, the relevant documents again sent to the O.P. No.2 but the same were also rejected on 30.01.2020 with a single reason i.e. certificate enclosed is improper, which seems that the O.P. No. 1 was carelessly sending the reports and documents to the O.P. No.2, and the same act compels the complainant to submit his grievances before the O.P. No.1 on dated 05.01.2021 and on 19.01.2021, for which this disputes arose.We think, the O.P. No.1 could have prepared the 60 months wages particulars when the received the absentee statement from the complainant and send the same to the O.P. No. 2 for release of pension in time.By not doing so, in our view the O.P. No. 1 has followed the principle of deficiency in service.

6. Further it is seen from the documents and ascertained from the submissions of the complainant that the other claims are related to service disputes.  In this connection, we want to make it clear that though this Commission lacks jurisdiction to try the disputes related to service matter, however, in the present case, the EPF disputes arose out of non increment of salary in proper time, non updation of other documents in time, which is also evident from the letter no. 1201 dated 05.08.2021 issued by the Dy. Registrar, DRCS, Jeypore being filed by the complainant, hence we herewith direct the O.P. No. 1 to revise all the documents for service benefits of the complainant properly, if they have not done. 
    
7. Further during hearing, it is ascertained that the following services have already been carried out by the O.P. No.1 prior to filing of this present dispute, such as (1) service of complainant was regularized, (2) salary has also been revised as per 7^th pay fitment, (3) earned leave for the period from 18.12.2020 to 31.12.2020 is also sanctioned.  Whereas as per the arguments of the parties concerned, it is ascertained that some employees of the O.P. No. 1 have already get higher pension according to their service upgradation, but in the case of complainant due to improper revise of salary, his increments became less as compare to others employees who are joined later than the complainant, under the O.P. No.1.  Hence the O.P. No.1 is herewith directed to calculate and revise the service increments of complainant properly and also to send the EPF related documents to the O.P. No.2 for their consideration.    

8. It is also ascertained from the documents filed by the O. P. No. 1 i.e. letter no. 835 dated 01.03.2019 issued by Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Jeypore that the RACP fitment, is at present not applicable to the complainant, as one vigilance case vide no. 42 dated 26.12.2018 is initiated against the complainant for mismanagement / misappropriation of funds which is still pending before the Competent Court.  Hence we do not think that the complainant is at present entitled the benefits under RACP fitment till disposal of the said vigilance case.

9. In this present situation, we would like to make it clear that though the complainant is immediate authority to send the absentee statement to the O.P. No.1 for release of salary and to make contribution towards EPF scheme, simultaneously, it is also the duty on the part of the part of the O.P. No.1 to collect the absentee statement of all the employees of all the LAMPS under them being the DDO.  Hence it can be safely concluded that both the complainant and O.P. No.1 have their own liabilities in this regard, which results this dispute.
    
10. Further regarding gratuity, we would like to make it clear that this Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain a matter related to gratuity.   Hence complainant is herewith directed to approach the Competent Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

11. Hence, we are of the opinion that due to non revise of increment in time, complainant must have suffered mentally, as he has been deprieved of to get the proper EPF benefits from the O.P. No.2, which is not to be happened.  And as per settled law, any subscriber under EPF should not be harassed in any manner, as the subscription towards EPF is only meant for the future, which is also a legal right of an employee.  Hence considering the above discussion, we are of the opinion that in the present case, complainant must have suffered mentally and sustained  financial loss and physically harassed and deserves for costs and compensation.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                                         ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No.1 is herewith directed to revise the entire service benefits of the complainant and send the relevant documents to the O.P. No.2 properly for release of EPF benefits.  Besides that the O.P. No.1 is herewith directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation in the ends of justice.   All the directions should be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.

        Since no deficiency of service found out against O.P. No.2, no order against them.

        Pronounced in the Open Court on this the 22^nd day of August, 2022.   Issue free copy to the parties concerned.