Karnataka
StateCommission
A/654/2017
The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)
Versus
Chikkanjinappa - Opp.Party(s)
Nandita Haldipur
18 Apr 2023
ORDER
Date of Filing :13.03.2017
Date of Disposal :18.04.2023
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:18.04.2023
PRESENT
APPEAL Nos.649/2017 to 665/2017
The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Regional Office: Peenya,
No.62, 3rd Cross, Industrial Suburb,
Yeshwanthpur 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 022 Appellant
(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)
(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)
-Versus-
1. Appeal No.649/2017
1. Mr D.Ranganathaiah
Aged about 60 years,
Shivu Krupa, 2nd Cross,
9th Main, Ashoka Nagar,
Tumakuru-572 102.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru. Respondents
2. Appeal No.650/2017
1. Mr Venkateshalu.G.
Aged about 60 years,
H.No.267, Lekkalaya Nilaya,
4th Main, Behind College,
Kuvempunagar, Tumakuru
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru. Respondents
3. Appeal No.651/2017
1. Mr K.Anwar Basha
Aged about 60 years,
D.No.715,
Beside S.K. Tailor,
9th Cross, PH Colony,
Tumakuru.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru. Respondents
4. Appeal No.652/2017
1. Mr Akalappa M
S/o late Muthyalappa,
Aged about 62 years,
Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Krupa,
D No.214, 7th Cross,
Krishna Nagar,
SIT Extension, Tumakuru.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru. Respondents
5. Appeal No.653/2017
1. Mr Chandra Shekar V
S/o late Veeranna,
Aged about 59 years,
D.No.163, Pratheeka Nilaya,
11th Cross, Vidyanagar,
Tumakuru.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna, Tumakuru. Respondents
6. Appeal No.654/2017
1. Mr Chikkanjinappa .
Aged about 58 years,
Sanjeevini Nilaya,
Siddarameshwara Extension,
Batavadi, Tumakuru.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru. Respondents
7. Appeal No.655/2017
1. Mr B.Boraiah
Aged about 60 years,
Nethaji Road, 3rd Cross,
Vidya Nagar, Tumakuru.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru Respondents
8. Appeal No.656/2017
1. Mr Hanumantharayappa
S/o Mr Chikkanna
Aged about 60 years,
Prashanth Nagar,
Devarayapatana,
Tumakuru
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru Respondents
9. Appeal No.657/2017
1. Mr Jayanna
S/o Mr Dyamanna
Aged about 58 years,
Sri Renuka Nilaya,
Mahalakshmi Nagar,
1st Block, 8th Main, Tumakuru
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru Respondents
10. Appeal No.658/2017
1. Mr T.D. Govindaraju
S/o Late T B Dasappa
Aged about 59 years,
Sree Betarayaswamy Nilaya,
Behind Devanoor,
Sapthagiri Extn. Tumakuru
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru Respondents
11. Appeal No.659/2017
1. Mr B.Venkata Ramaiah
S/o Late Venkatashamaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
Chokkenahalli,
Near JAS Toll Right Side,
Urdagere Hobli, Kyathasandra Post,
Tumakuru.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru. Respondents
12. Appeal No.660/2017
1. Mr Narayanappa K.R.
S/o Late Rangappa,
Aged about 56 years,
Gowdagere Post, Sira Taluk,
Tumakuru.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru. Respondents
13. Appeal No.661/2017
1. Mr T.H. Abdullah Sharieff
S/o Mr Hassan Sharieff
Aged about 59 years,
2nd Cross, V.R.Colony,
KEB Main Road, Tumakuru
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru Respondents
14. Appeal No.662/2017
1. Mr Narasimhaiah
S/o late Kadurappa
Aged about 59 years,
SLN Swamy Nilaya,
Siddarameshwara Extension,
8-A Cross Road, Batawadi South,
Tumakuru.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru. Respondents
15. Appeal No.663/2017
1. Mr Mahamed Haneef
S/o Late N.Abdul Rahim
Aged about 59 years,
D.No.139, C.M. Extension,
Kyathsandra, Tumakuru
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna, Tumakuru Respondents
16. Appeal No.664/2017
1. Mr Rangappa K
S/o Mr Kambaiah
Aged about 59 years,
Near Vivekananda School,
7th Cross, Vidya nagar,
Tumakuru.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru Respondents
17.Appeal No.665/2017
1. Mr Ranganatha R
Aged about 58 years,
R/o Sri Lakshminarasimha Nilaya,
Sabarapalya, Baddihalli,
Tumakuru.
(By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate)
2. The General Manager,
HMT Watch Factory-4,
Devarayapatna,
Tumakuru Respondents
:COMMON ORDER:
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
02. Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Respondent No.1 in all these cases. Notice on Respondent No.2 has not been returned and no further needful steps have been taken by the Appellant, hence service of Notice on the Respondent No.2 has been dispensed with to avoid further delay.
03. The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint with cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of the Complainants and directed OP1/The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to re-fix the Monthly Pension of the Complainants, as per Para 12(3) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 by giving weightage of two years to all the Complainants & also extend minimum assured benefits- both in respect of past and present service, with effect from the date of retirement of each of the Complainants along with arrears of Pension with interest @ 12% p.a, to pay Annual Relief as per Para 32 of EPS 1995 and Dismissed the Complaints as against OP2.
04. Being aggrieved by this order, OP is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds that District Forum has erroneously directed for re-fixation by granting weightage of two years, when the Respondents are not eligible for the same, as they have not fulfilled both the conditions. Further contended that, the District Forum has directed the Appellant to grant pension to the Complainants as per Para 10 (2) read with Para 12 (3) of the Scheme. The Department has already regulated the pension claim of the Respondent No.1 as per Para 12 (3) of EPS 1995. The District Forum failed to taking into consideration that the Complainants have opted for reduced pension, before attaining the age of superannuation and thus failed to fulfil the mandatory requirement though the members had put in the requisite service. Hence, seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeals.
05. On perusal of the records, it is observed that Complainants were the employees of HMT Watch Factory, Tumkur; during their service, they joined the Employee PF Scheme; contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. After they retired from their services, they came to know that there are errors in calculation of their entitled pension and gave representations to the OP to rectify the same, but, OP did not rectify the mistakes committed in sanction of pension and hence, they filed their respective Complaints before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP. On the contrary, OP denied the error in fixation and payment of pension to the respective Complainants
06. Let us examine whether the Complainants are entitled for re-fixation of his Monthly Pension by adding 2 years of weightage, besides examining whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP1?
07. On perusal of the records, the service particulars of the Complainants are as under:
Appeal No. | Complaint No. |
Date of birth |
Date of joining | Date of retirement | Past service | Actual service |
Age at exist |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
649/2017 | 22/2016 | 20.09.1956 | 03.10.1980 | 31.03.2003 | 15Y 7M 14D | 7T 4M 16D | Prior to 58 |
650/2017 | 23/2016 | 28.05.1955 | 27.09.1982 | 17.05.2013 | 13Y 01M 18D | 17Y 6M 2D | 58 |
651/2017 | 24/2016 | 18.09.1956 | 20.11.1979 | 01.10.2010 | 15Y 11M 24D | 14Y 10M 15D | Prior to 58 |
652/2017 | 25/2016 | 14.01.1954 | 25.12.1979 | 31.01.2012 | 15Y 10M 20D | 16Y 2M 16D | 58 |
653/2017 | 26/2016 | 01.02.1957 | 26.11.1979 | 01.08.2011 | 15Y 11M 19D | 15Y 08M 16D | Prior to 58 |
654/2017 | 27/2016 | 20.7.1958 | 20.08.1979 | 01.08.2011 | 16Y 02M 25D | 15Y 8M 25D | Prior to 58 |
655/2017 | 28/2016 | 01.06.1956 | 03.09.1979 | 01.10.2010 | 16Y 02M 12D | 14Y 10M 15D | Prior to 58 |
656/2017 | 29/2016 | 01.06.1955 | 30.12.1979 | 30.10.2010 | 15Y 10M 14D | 14T 10M 15D | Prior to 58 |
657/2017 | 30/2016 | 12.06.1957 | 20.02.1980 | 01.08.2011 | 15Y 08M 25D | 15Y 8M 15D | Prior to 58 |
658/2017 | 31/2016 | 18.05.1957 | 05.11.1979 | 01.08.2011 | 16Y 00M 10 D | 15Y 8M 15D | Prior to 58 |
659/2017 | 32/2016 | 03.09.1956 | 31.12.1979 | 31.03.2003 | 15Y 10M 14D | 7Y 4M 16D | Prior to 58 |
660/2017 | 33/2016 | 01.06.1961 | 21.12.1979 | 01.08.2011 | 15Y 10M 15D | 15Y 8M 15D | Prior to 58 |
661/2017 | 34/2016 | 14.09.1958 | 12.09.1979 | 30.07.2011 | 16Y 02M 03D | 15Y 8M 15D | Prior to 58 |
662/2017 | 35/2016 | 11.01.1958 | 17.12.1979 | 01.04.2013 | 15Y 10M 28D | 17Y 4M 15D | Prior to 58 |
663/2017 | 36/2016 | 14.06.1957 | 05.11.1979 | 01.08.2011 | 16Y 00M 10D | 15Y 8M 15D | Prior to 58 |
664/2017 | 37/2016 | 19.11.1957 | 31.03.1980 | 01.08.2011 | 15Y 07M 14D | 15Y 8M 15D | Prior to 58 |
665/2017 | 38/2016 | 26.06.1958 | 17.12.1979 | 01.08.2011 | 15Y 10M 28D | 15Y 8M 15D | Prior to 58 |
As per the contents of the above table, it is observed that Complainants/Respondents herein in Appeal Nos.650/2017 and 652/2017 retired at the age of 58 years and rendered pensionable service of 20 years & more. Both of them have complied with the conditions as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood after 24.07.2009, hence, both the Complainantsare eligible for weightage of two years.
Likewise, the Complainants/Respondents herein in Appeal Nos.649/2017 and 659/2017 retired prior to 58 years before the amendment to 24.07.2009 of EPS 1995 and rendered pensionable service of 20 years & more. Both of them complied with the conditions as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood before 24.07.2009, hence, both the complainants are eligible for weightage of two years.
Whereas Complainants/Respondents herein in Appeal Nos.651/2017, 653/2017 to 658/2017 and 660/2017 to 665/2017 retired prior to 58 years after the amendment to 24.07.2009 of EPS 1995and rendered pensionable service of 20 years & more, but, not complied with the conditions as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood after 24.07.2009, hence, in these Appeals, the Complainants/Respondents are not eligible for weightage of two years.
With regard to Calculation of Monthly Pension to Complainants in Appeal Nos.649/2017 and 659/2017, it is observed that both of them retired earlier to amendment of 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995.
,, In so far as Calculation of Monthly Pension to Complainants in Appeal Nos.650/2017, 651/2017 to 658/2017 and 660/2017 to 665/2017, it is observed that all these Complainants had retired after amendment of 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood after 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995. The fact remains that the Complainants in these Appeals have not been superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations and should have subjected these Members to their entitlement for Reduced monthly Pension at reduction rate of 4% for every year of short fall in their service, as the age of the Members qualifying for benefits under the PF scheme, falls short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995.
Further, the benefit under Para 32 of the Scheme i.e., Annual Relief, it is only Central Government which can grant such reliefs and not the OP, as such the same cannot be granted by the OP.
08. During the course of arguments, counsel for the Appellant submitted that they have granted weightage of two years and arrears have been paid in Appeal Nos.649/2017, 650/2017, 652/2017 and 659/017, but they have not produced any document to show that when they granted weightage of two years and paid arrears to theses complainants.
09. Thus, with the above observations, this Commission is of the considered view that Impugned Order passed by the District Forum is just and proper in so far as in Consumer Complaint Nos.22/2016, 23/2016, 25/2016 and 32/2016 however, awarding of interest @ 12% p.a is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal Nos.649/2017, 650/2017, 652/2017 and 659/2017 are allowed in part. Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 03.12.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.22/2016, 23/2016, 25/2016 and 32/2016respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum District Forum. The cost awarded by the District Forum of Rs.2,000/- each to these Complainants shall remain un-disturbed.
10. Since the Complainants in Appeal Nos.651/2017, 653/2017 to 658/2017 and 660/2017 to 665/2017 are not eligible for weightage of two years, the Impugned Order requires to be interfered with. Accordingly, Appeal Nos.651/2017, 653/2017 to 658/2017 and 660/2017 to 665/2017 are allowed. Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 03.12.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.24/2016, 26/2016 to 31/2016 and 33/2016 to 38/2016 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur is hereby set aside. OP/Appellant herein is directed to calculate Monthly Pension of these Complainants as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood after 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995 and the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations and should have subjected these Members/Complainants/ Respondents herein to their entitlement for Reduced monthly Pension at the reduction rate of 4% for every year of short fall in their service, as the age of the Members qualifying for benefits under the PF scheme, falls short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995.
Further Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this Order.
11. The statutory deposit in Appeal Nos.649/2017, 650/2017, 652/2017 and 659/2017 is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful
The statutory deposit in Appeal Nos.651/2017, 653/2017 to 658/2017 and 660/2017 to 665/2017 is directed to be refunded to the Appellant with proper identification by his Advocate.
12. Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.649/2017 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.
13. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
President
*s
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.