Complaint Case No
:
1158 of 2009
Date of Institution
:
13.08.2009
Date of Decision
:
23.11.2009
Prem Chand s/o Kishore Lal, #38/183, Top Khanna Mor, Back Side M/S Bala Shoe Company, Patiala (Pb.)
….…Complainant
V E R S U S
1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, (o/o Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation), Regional Provident Fund Office- SCO No.4 to 7, Sector 17D, Chandigarh 160017.
2. The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Punjab, Bay No.34 to 38, Sector 31-A, Chandigarh.
3. The Assistant General Manger (C.P.F), Food Corporation of India, Regional Office (North), A-2, B-2, Sector 24, Noida (U.P).
4. Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, through : APFC: Regional Office-Noida, # A-2C, Sector 24, Noida (U.P).
..…Opposite Parties
CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT
SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER
DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER
Argued by: Sh. M.G. Sharma, Authorized Representative of complainant.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, Adv. for OPs 1 & 4.
Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Adv. for OPs 2 & 3.
PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT
Succinctly put, the complainant, superannuated on 30.9.2007 from the Food Corporation of India. He contributed towards EPS-1995 vide EPS a/c No.4238 and was entitled for full rate monthly pension on attaining the age of 58 years i.e. effective from 3.9.2005. He submitted the form 10-D for fixation of his monthly pension at full rate much before 10.7.2008. The OPs were required to fix monthly pension effective from 3.9.2005 by issuing the Pension Payment Order but the same was not done despite number of visits and enquiries made by the complainant. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2. In their written reply OPs 1 & 4 took preliminary objections inter alia that this Forum has no jurisdiction and that the complaint is premature. On merits it has been denied that there was any delay on part of the answering OPs. It has been pleaded that the claim form 10D was received in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Delhi on 17.9.2009 only, which is under process and would be sent alongwith relevant documents to the answering OP for issuing the PPO in favour of the complainant. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. In their separate written reply OPs 2 & 3 admitted the submission of form 10-D for fixation of his monthly pension on 2.7.2008 which were immediately forwarded to the Assistant General Manager, CPF, FCI, Zonal Office, Noida vide letter dated 10.7.2008 and were further forwarded to the office of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Wazirpur, New Delhi who was to fix family pension of the complainant. It has been denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part. Pleading that the delay, if any, was procedural the answering OPs also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5. We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. The ld.Counsel for OP No.1 & 4 has argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint, which should have been filed by the complainant with the District Forum, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. It is not disputed by OPs No.1 & 4 that they have a Branch Office at Chandigarh. Similarly, the Head Office of OP No.2, which is the employer of the complainant is also at Chandigarh. This Forum, therefore, would have the territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint.
7. It is also argued that it is a dispute between the employer & employee and therefore, the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction. This contention is no longer acceptable because the question has since been decided at the highest level that the Consumer Fora has the jurisdiction to try such complaints.
8. There is no dispute about it that the complainant retired w.e.f. 30.9.2007 from the office of Area Manager of the F.C.I. as a Picker. He submitted his papers to the Area Manager on 2.7.2008 and the same were forwarded to the OP No.3 on 10.7.2008. The OP No.3, however, sat over the papers for more than One Year without any reason. These were forwarded by OP No.3 to its Zonal Office i.e. OP No.2 vide letter dated 25/28.8.2009, which were received in the said office on 3.9.2009 and were further forwarded to OP No.1 vide letter dated 16.9.2009. It has now been reported that the Pension was sanctioned to the complainant vide letter dated 21.10.2009 during the pendency of this complaint. It is therefore clear that OPs No.2 & 3 have delayed the processing of the papers for sanction of pension to the complainant. It is not the only case in which these OPs were negligent. In another case Kashimir Singh vs. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner’ the matter was delayed by about 4 years and the pension was sanctioned during the pendency of the complaint. The OPs were directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant, which order was maintained by the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal Case No.926 of 2008, decided on 3.7.2008, copy of which is Annexure P-1. In another case Ram Sarup Vs. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Complaint Case No.357 of 2009 also the processing of the papers was intentionally delayed by about 11 months and in that case the OPs were directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant, which they were permitted to recover from the officials who were responsible for sending the pension papers of the complainant to the concerned office in time and had delayed the same. It is, therefore, clear that the OPs No.2 & 3 are chronic defaulters in this respect and have not improved their working even inspite of the repeated orders passed by the Consumer Fora. There was no reason as to why the papers would have been kept by OP No.3 for a period of more than 13 months thereby harassing a low paid employee, who had since retired and was to sustain himself only on the pension, which was being denied to him for considerably long time.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to release the arrears of pension of complainant with effect from the date of his retirement to date and also to pay him Rs.40,000/- (inclusive of litigation cost) as compensation for causing him harassment by delaying the payment of pension. The amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they would be liable to pay the same along with penal interest at the rate of 12% per annum since the filing of present complaint i.e. 13.08.2009 till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.
10. The OPs No.2 & 3 would be free to recover the said amount from the officials, who were responsible for sending the pension papers of the complainant to the concerned office in time and had delayed the same, of course after following the procedure, as required by law/rules.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.


LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Submit Complaint..
