Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/50/2014

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Complainant(s)

Versus

V. SELVARAJ - Opp.Party(s)

K. GUNASEKARAN

26 May 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

                  Present:  Hon'ble Justice Thiru R. Regupathi               PRESIDENT

                                Thiru J. Jayaram,                                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                                     MEMBER

F.A. No. 50 / 2014

(Against the Order in C.C. No.03/2012, dated 01-11-2012

on the file of the DCDRF, Salem)

                                                                              Dated this the 26^th day of  MAY, 2015

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,           ]

    Regional Office of Employees P.F. Organization, ]

    37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai – 600 014        ]

2. Asst. P.F. Commissioner,                                       ]

    Employees Provident Fund Organisation,     ]

    Sub-Regional Office,                                             ]

    Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 004                                 ]  

3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I,     ]

    Regional Office, Employer,                                    ] Appellants /

    No.13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road,                       ] Opposite Parties

    P.B. No.25146, Bangalore – 577 204                       ]

                   Vs.      

Sri. V. Selvaraj,                                                         ]

5/256, Plot No.68,                                            ]

Alagu Nagar,                                                             ] Complainant /

Salem – 636 201                                                        ] Respondent

 

                 This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 18-03-2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Appellant:               -        Mr. K. Gunasekaran

Counsel for Respondent:           -        Party in Person

J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

             The case of the complainant is as follows:

             The complainant is a Member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme since 1982, and he has been regularly paying the monthly contribution through his employers to the 3^rd opposite parties without any default until his superannuation in May, 2004 on attaining the age of 58 years. He has been in service for 13 years prior to 9 years after the enactment of 1995 Scheme until his superannuation at 58 years in 2004. He must have been granted weightage of two years since he has put in more than 20 years of service for arriving at the monthly pension. The opposite parties did not grant weightage of two years and fixed his monthly pension at Rs.1,072/- and his pensionable salary was fixed at Rs.6,500/- only for calculating the monthly pension, instead of taking the average monthly pay of the Member drawn during the contributory period of 12 months. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and hence the complaint.

2.       According to the opposite parties, the complainant was a P.F. Member with effect from 1-6-1982 and he completed his service at the age of 58 years on superannuation, on 27-5-2004. The 3^rd opposite party fixed the monthly pension at Rs.1,072/- per month with effect from 27-5-2004. The pensionable salary is limited to Rs.6,500/- per month as per para 10 (2) of the Employee’s Pension Scheme, 1995,

“In case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding weightage of two years”.   

In the present case, the complainant has served for less than 20 years of pensionable service, and he has completed 58 years of age on    27-5-2004 and had served for 9 years only after the Scheme, and so he is not eligible for weightage of two years, and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred the appeal.

4.       The complainant has filed the complaint seeking weightage of two years of service for the purpose of calculating pension as provided under para 10 (2) of the EPS, 1995. The appellants / opposite parties have declined the request holding that the complainant is not entitled to weightage of two years of service.

5.       It is pertinent to note that the complainant has put in 13 years of service prior to the enactment of the 1995 Scheme, and 9 years after the EPF Scheme until his superannuation at the age of 58 years in 2004.

6.       The District Forum has observed that the complainant had put in 13 years of past service and 9 years of actual service after the EPS Scheme, 1995 came into force and since the complainant has put in more than 20 years of service, he is entitled to weightage of two years as per rule 10 (2).  

7.       The District Forum has relied on the citation -

IV (2010) CPJ 151 (NC) in the case of  -

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli vs. Mallikarjun Devendrappa Verapur

in arriving at the conclusion that the period under past service or under actual service or both as the case may be, will constitute eligible service and that the period of ‘past service’ and ‘actual service’ should be rounded off separately to the nearest year to determine the eligibility of pension, and therefore, past service and actual service should be taken into account to determine the eligible service.  

8.       The appellants have relied on the order of this Commission in FA No.113 / 2010, dated 30-01-2012 in the case of B. Premavathy and 16 others vs. The Regional Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund, Coimbatore & 4 others; We find that the facts of the above case, and the ratio are different and so it has no relevance to the instant case.

9.       The complainant / respondent has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur Vs. Vasant Madhav Kerur & Others, and argued that he is eligible for weightage of two years, wherein it is held as follows:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b) – Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 – Rule 10(2) – Pension – Retirement on attaining age of superannuation – ‘Past service’ – weightage of 2 years denied – Deficiency in service – District Forum allowed complaints – State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision – Circulars must be read in conjunction with each other – Authorities have to consider the aggregate of ‘PAST SERVICE’ PLUS the period from 16-11-1995 onwards – Complainants have joined service before 1971 and have rendered more than 26 years of service – They are entitled for two years weightage under Rule 10 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and their pension has to be fixed accordingly”.

10.     On consideration of the entire materials on record, we hold that the complainant is eligible for weightage of two years, and that the denial of weightage of two years by the opposite parties would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

11.     The District Forum has come to the right conclusion that the complainant is eligible for weightage of two years, and that denial of the opposite parties to grant weightage of two years to the complainant would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and has rightly allowed the complaint, passing an order directing the appellants / opposite parties to recalculate the monthly pension adding weightage of two years to the complainant to pay the arrears from the beginning of the complainants monthly pension with 9 % interest, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,500/- towards costs to the complainant within two months from the date of order.

12.     In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that award of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony is unwarranted and therefore the order of the District Forum is to be modified accordingly.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order of the District Forum by setting aside the direction to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and confirming the rest of the order. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P. BAKIYAVATHI              J. JAYARAM                    R. REGUPATHI

        MEMBER                   JUDICIAL MEMBER               PRESIDENT