KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.569/11

            JUDGMENT DATED 5.5.2012

 PRESENT

 SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                             --  MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                                                   --  MEMBER

1.         The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

Regional Office, 8^th & 9^th Floor,

Mayoor Bhavan, Cannaught Circus,

New Delhi – 1.                                                           -- APPELLANTS

2.         The Asst.Provident Commissioner,

            Employees provident Fund Organization

            Sub Regional Office, Fort Road,

            Kannur.                                                                      

               (By Adv.Pattom K.Ramachandran Nair)

                                    Vs.

1.         E.M.Ithamma, W/0 Mathai,

Ettiyil House, P.O, Keezhpally,

Kannur District, Pin.670 704.

2.         B.Mohanan, S/o K.Bhaskaran,

            Muthukkuzhi Kizhakkinkara Puthen

            Veedu house, Kudappanamoodu, (Via)

            Vellarada, Thiruvananthapuram 695 505.

3.         C.P.Zainaba, W/o Muhammed,

            Chanthappaid House, P.O.Keezhpally,

            Kannur District, Pin 670 704.                                  --  RESPONDENTS

4.         The Secretary,

            Board of Trustee EPF State Farms

            Corporation of India Ltd, No.14-15.

            Farms Bhavan, Nehru  Place,

New Delhi 110 019.

5.         The Director Central State Farm,

            Aralam Farm, Aralam PO (via)

            Peravoor – 670 673.

JUDGMENT

SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER

          This appeal is filed by the 3^rd  and 4^th opposite parties in CC.356/03  before the CDRF, Kannur who are under directions to pay revised pension to the 1^st and 3^rd complainants and to pay interest at 12% per annum for the arrears of pension with compensation and cost of Rs.2,000/-.

          2. The complainants   were the employees of the second opposite party and who retired from service under voluntary retirement  scheme.  The    first complainant case is that she retired from service on 26.3.01 and that though she had completed 29 years of continuous service, the 3^rd  and 4^th opposite parties allowed only  a  nominal  amount as pension and that too much belatedly.  The second complainant has stated that he has retired from service after completing 16 years of service and that  his due amounts were not paid within the time.  The third complainant has also a case that she had completed 22 years of service and her allegation is  also that the pension amount allowed was much less and that too much belatedly.  The complainants in total have a case that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service in sanctioning the pension at the appropriate time and also that the amounts sanctioned were not correct.  In the complaint they prayed for directions to the opposite parties to issue revised pension and also interest for the belated payment.

          3. The appellants/opposite parties filed version contending that the second opposite party was maintaining the Provident Fund account in respect of the subscribers and that the pension claim forms in Form No.10-D in respect of the complainants were submitted by the first and second opposite parties only on 31.3.03 and that after getting necessary clarifications, the payment orders were issued on 2.9.03 and hence there was no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties in sanctioning the pension.     It was also submitted that the pension was sanctioned after considering the fact that the  complainants had opted pension before  attaining  the age of 58 and also that they had applied for commutation of pension and hence the calculations made by the appellants were correct and there was no deficiency in service on their part.

          4. Before the Forum below documents produced by both sides were marked as Ext.A1 to A9 and B1 to B12 (a).

          5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned  amicus curiae Adv.K.Radhakrishnan who is appointed by this Commission for and on behalf of the respondents/complainants.   

          6. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the directions of the Forum below for payment of full pension to the complainants without deducting commuted portion and  also deduction at the rate of 3% per annum for every year  short of   attaining 58 years  cannot be sustained and it is his very case that the order of the Forum below is liable to set aside. Anyhow, he has not attacked the direction of the Forum below to the first opposite party to release the amount of Rs.26,986/- to the second complainant on production of the clearance certificate from the Kerala State Development Corporation for Christian converts from Scheduled Castes and recommended communities with respect to the loan of Mr.Joshy Mathew Thadathil.  He has invited our attention to the calculations contained in the appeal memorandum regarding the pension of the first and third complainants.  It is submitted by him that since the complainants had opted for VRS before attaining the age of 58   and also availed the facility of commutation of the pension   only the balance eligible amount of pension was sanctioned as per Para 12 (4), 12 (7) and 13 (1)  of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.    He has further submitted that the Lower Forum did not consider the question of reduction in pension consequent to earlier retirement and also regarding commutation of pension.   With regard to the delay , the learned counsel invited our attention to Ext.B1 dated 31.3.03 whereby it is clear that the applications were submitted to the appellants only much late and as soon as they received the applications the same were processed and the orders were issued without any further delay.    Hence  it is his very case that the order of the Forum below directing the appellants/3rdand 4^th opposite parties to pay the pension amounts shown in the order with interest and compensation cannot be sustained from any corner.

          7. The learned amicus curiae vehemently opposed the contentions of the  learned counsel for the appellants.  It is submitted by him that though it is true that the complainants were eligible to get reduced pension only and though   they had opted for commutation of pension, the forum below had considered these aspects also while passing the impugned order.  He has submitted before us that much deliberations were made by the Forum below before arriving at the amounts shown in the order and hence the order of the Forum below is only to be upheld.

          8. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants  and the amicus curiae we find that it is the admitted case of all the parties   that the complainants had taken voluntary retirement before attaining the age of 58 years.  Even the amicus curiae has no case that 3% per annum for every year  short of   58 years will be reduced and also that further reduction will be made if the pensioners opted for   commutation of pension.  We have found that it is after detailed calculations that the appellants had arrived at the pension amount to the complainants.  It is also to be found that the complainants had break in service during their service and nobody has a case that they had paid  their share to the Employees Pension Scheme  for the break in service period.   It is seen that the Forum below had failed in considering the break in service period of the complainants.  It is to be found that if there was break in service and if the subscribers had not contributed to the employees pension scheme naturally those periods will be exempted while calculating  the eligible period for considering the  complainants’   pension.   Hence it is our considered view that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in calculating the eligible amount of pension to the complainants.  We find that there was some sort of delay in sanctioning the pension.  We observe that Ext.B1 is sufficient proof   to show that   the appellants had received the pension applications in Form 10-D only by that date, though the complainants had retired much earlier.  The second opposite party has submitted  that the delay in forwarding the application had occurred due to the fact that around 400 employees and 120 staff had simultaneously left the organization and for collecting the details much time was consumed and hence the delay was not deliberate or willful.    We find that  in such a circumstance it cannot be held that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in taking time for sanctioning pension to the complainants.    Hence it is our considered view that the appeal is only to be allowed as against the appellants and we do so accordingly.

          9. In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The directions contained in the order dated 30.6.11 of CDRF, Kannur as against the appellants are set aside.  In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal ,parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

          Office is directed to forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum below urgently.

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR --  MEMBER

A.RADHA  --  MEMBER