BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 2042/2017
The Assistant PF Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Sath Kacheri Road, Garaladinni Complex, 2nd Floor, Raichur 584102. Represented by The Assistant PF Commissioner, No.13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road, Regional Office, Bangalore 560 025. (By Mrs. Nalini Venkatesh) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Sri Chandrashekar, S/o Maharudrappa Pattar, Aged about 66 years, R/o Plot No.39, Sector No.35, Navanagar, Tq & Dist Bagalkot. (By Sri Yogesh Hiremath) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Common Order dt.11.08.2017 passed in CC.No.13/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bagalkot.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that in the year 2015, he came to the knowledge from one of his colleagues that there was an error in the calculation of pension fixed to them. It also came to the knowledge that pension paid to them are lesser one that the complainant is entitled. Immediately the complainant has given representation to the Opposite Party for the revision of the monthly pension, but, the Opposite Party failed to comply the same. The complainant was working as an employee under the Opposite Party No.2. While he was in service, he was the member of “ The Employees of Family Pension Scheme 1971 ” making contribution towards the scheme and later on “ The Employees Pension Scheme 1995 ” was introduced and brought into force with effect from 16.11.1995 which was compulsory continued to be the members of the scheme by making monthly contribution and subsequently he retired from service. But however, the complainant came to came to know that the fixation of his pension is not in accordance with the scheme and he has not been given two years of weightage as per the 1995 scheme inspite of his repeated requests and issuance of notice and this amounts to deficiency in service and further it is also alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 has not given the Annual Relief which is to be given under Paragraph 32 of the 1995 Scheme etc., hence, the complaint.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared through his counsel, but, did not file objection and evidence also taken as nil. Opposite Party No.2 stated that the complainant was an employee of the Opposite Party No.1 and during his employment he became the member of 1971 scheme and making contribution and after enforcement of 1995 scheme he continued to be the member by making the monthly contribution and now he had retired from service and Opposite Party No.1 has determined the pension payable to him. That after the retirement of the complainant from service, the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted all necessary service particular of the complainant to the Opposite Party No.1, hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party No.1 is in appeal. Appellant files written arguments.
5. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the respondent was an employee of M/s Hatti Gold Mines Co., Ltd., and retired from his service on attaining their age of superannuation. When he was in service provident fund amount was deduction from the salary of the respondent. The allegation of the respondent is that the fixation of the pension is not in accordance with PF Scheme and he has not been given two years weightage as per 1995 pension scheme and also not given annual benefit under Para-32 of the 1995 pension scheme.
6. Perused the appeal memo and calculation sheet produced by the appellant. We noticed that the respondent has rendered 20 years of pensionable service and superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years under paragraph-12 of the EPF Scheme, hence, as per the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of two years weightage. However, as per calculation sheet, the appellant has already revised the pension by adding two years weightage during December 2014 before filing the complaint and credited Rs.15,325/- arrears during December 2014 to the account of the respondent. Moreover, the respondent has not present before this Commission from long time and not argued the matter that how he is entitled for the benefit of the PF Scheme. It seems the respondent has no interest in continuing the matter. The appellant has credited Rs.15,325/- in the account of the respondent in December 2014 itself. Considering the facts and discussion made herein, we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
