Delhi

East Delhi

CC/291/2022

GYANENDRA KUMAR GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Opp.Party(s)

26 Sep 2022

ORDER

At 04:00 PM

Present:          None

This Commission has perused the file. Basically the Complaint of the Complainant is that his wife was earlier working and contributing to PF Account No. MRNO100159850000000113 which job was from 01.07.1996 to 31.07.2006, However she did not contribute to PF from 01.08.2006 to 28.02.2011, and when she joined other company, she again started contributing in PF and this time her new PF account No. was DSNPH00171580000000114.  She requested the PF office to transfer her balance from old PF Account No. MRNO100159850000000113 to new PF Account No. DSNPH00171580000000114, however it was not done by the OP. But, somehow her balance amount was transferred from Account No. 13 to its 14 on 19.04.2015. i.e. amount of Rs.4,35,371/-, in May 2015. However, no interest was paid from 20.11.2012 to 2014-15. She gave various re-presentation but the interest accrued for that the period was not given. His wife, however, expired on 27.10.2018, and he submitted document for final settlement on 3.12.2018. Ultimately, her claim was settled on 15.01.2019 but again the interest from April 2011 to June 2012 was not provided and it is interalia prayed that OP be directed to pay interest of Rs.51,123/- for the period of 01.04.2011 to 15.06.2012 and be directed to pay contribution from April 2012 to May 2012, to re-fix the pension and pay arrears of pension and any other relief which the Commission deems fit.

The OP has not been summoned so far, and clarification was sought basically on two grounds i.e as to how the complaint is maintainable and whether it is barred by limitation.

The Commission is of the opinion that the complaint has been filed on 24.06.2022 for the relief claimed, with respect to the interest for the year 2011-12 which allegedly has not been given to her. Before the Commission goes to the limitation aspect, it is to be seen if the present complaint is maintainable or not in view of the order of NCDRC is in revision petition No. 71/2013, titled Kondareddygari Adinarayanareddy vs State Bank of Hyderabad. Where-in it was decided by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, on 20.07.2022 as follows:

“While relying on Supreme Court judgments on the issue, NCDRC held that any grievance regarding withholding the bank’s contribution to gratuity or provident fund is an issue that has to be adjudicated upon by the civil court or competent tribunal.

NCDRC also observed that District Commission and State Commission erred in not examining the preliminary issue of maintainability of the complaint first and directly deciding the complaint on merits. Even though the District Commission and State Commission dismissed the Complaint/ FA on merit, NCDRC set their orders aside and dismissed the complaint on the preliminary issue of maintainability of the complaint. The Complainant, however, was granted liberty to approach the competent civil court/ service tribunal for redressal of his grievances.”

 Keeping in view thus aspect of law, the Commission, without going into the question of limitation, holds that this is not fit-case where OP be summoned as the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the Jurisdiction of the Commission Under CPA 2019. Complaint case is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.

File be consigned to Record Room.