Karnataka

StateCommission

A/509/2018

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fakira - Opp.Party(s)

B.V.Vidyulatha

17 Apr 2023

ORDER

                                                                  Date of Filing :07.03.2018

                                                             Date of Disposal :17.04.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:17.04.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.508/2018 to 513/2018

 

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension),

Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax office,

Navanagar, Hubli – 580025.

(By Mrs B V Vidyulatha Advocate)                                        Appellant

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

                                           -Versus-

 

1. Appeal No.508/2018

Mr Mahendra,
S/o Huvappa Dhanuche,

Aged about 66 years,

R/at No.214, 2^nd Cross,

Vidya Nagar, Anagol,

Belagavi-580006.
(By Miss G Geeta Bai, Advocate)                                  Respondent

 

2. Appeal No.509/2018

Mr Fakira,
S/o Mr Kalappa,

Aged about 66 years,

R/at No.372, Anandawadi,

Shahapur,

Belagavi – 580003.

(By Miss G Geeta Bai, Advocate)                                Respondent 

                                                                            

3. Appeal No.510/2018

Mr Ramachandra .
S/o Mr Bhima Rao Gudi

Aged about 69 years

R/at Plat No.139, H.No.E27,

Madhura Estate,

Near Badaminagar,

     Keshwapur, Hubballi                                                         Respondent

     (By Miss G Geeta Bai, Advocate)

 

4. Appeal No.511/2018

Mr Balakrishna .
S/o Mr Tukaram Jituri,

Aged about 67 years,

R/at Balaji Nivas,

H.No.126, Prashanth Nagar,

Old Hubbli, Hubballi – 580024.                                 Respondent 

(By Miss G Geeta Bai, Advocate)

 

5. Appeal No.512/2018

Mr Krishna,
S/o Mr Hanumanth Rao Kulkarni,

Aged about 68 years,

R/at No.14/A,

Ramakrishna Nagar,

Gokul Road, Hubballi-580030                                  Respondent 

(By Miss G Geeta Bai, Advocate)

 

6. Appeal No.513/2018

Mr Basappa,
S/o Mr Siddalingappa Kyatanavar,

Aged about 67 years,

R/at Jagalipeth,

Bagarpeth Cross, Old Hubbli,

Hubballi – 580024.                                                    Respondent 

(By Miss G Geeta Bai, Advocate)

 

    :COMMON ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

01.     These Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 22.02.2018 passed in Complaint Nos.146/2017, 147/2017, 149/2017, 150/2017, 151/2017 and 152/2017respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short, the District Forum). Since the facts and law involved in all these cases are one and the same, they have been taken up together for consideration.

 

 

 

02.     Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. Since none appeared on behalf of the Appellant, the arguments of Appellant is taken as heard.

03.     The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, deemed it fit to allow the Complaints in part and directed the OP to revise the monthly pension of all the Complainants taking into consideration the date of their retirement and pay the arrears with interest at the rate of 10% p.a as and when the arrears become due and go on paying the pension at the revised rate, according to the rules as on the date of their retirement as per Para 12 (3)(a) and (b)of EPS 1995  and to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the each of the Complainants etc.,                                                                                     

04.     Being aggrieved by this Order, OP contended that the District Forum erred in considering that the Complaint is filed within time inspite of the plea raised by Appellant that the Complaint filed in the year 2017, complaining about deficiency of service in respect of monthly pension fixed in the year 2003, which is more than 18 years from the date of cause of action is erroneous.  Further contended that District Forum has erred in not considering that as per Para 35 and 41 of the EPS 1995, the complainant has an alternate remedy of approaching the Central Government, since the present Complaint is in respect of interpretation of a provision of the scheme and hence, Central Government would be the competent authority to decide the dispute.  Hence, seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeals.

05.     The main grievance of the Complainants is that OP has wrongly calculated the assured benefit and on knowing about the same, they gave representations to OP to rectify the mistake, but OP has not complied with the request.  On the contrary, OP pleaded that the Complainants have not completed the required period of service and as such there is no question of revision of the Pension.  Further OP denied the error in fixation and payment of the pension.

06.     The learned counsel for the Respondents/Complainants in all these cases submitted that all the Respondents are eligible for weightage of two years, though they had opted for Reduced Pension, as there is a provision under Para 12 (7) to reduce the Pension @ 3% every year to the extent of the age that falls short of 58 years.  Further, she submitted that the Complainants in each of the case are eligible for past service benefit, as per the un-amended Para 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) (a & b) and while calculating the age, Appellant has to round off the years of service to next higher year,  if it is more than 6 months. 

The learned counsel for Respondent, in support of her submission, referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 28.09.1984 in the case of Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1984 Law Suit (SC) 270 and submitted that in the said decision, it was clearly stated that, as on the date of retirement of the pensioner, the prevailing pension rules will be applicable and that may be taken into consideration in all these cases.

07.     On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the Complainants have joined the Employee Provident Fund Scheme,they contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, they 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 error in fixation and payment of pension to the respective Complainants.

08.     Let us examine the details of service particulars of each of the Complainant,as per Memo filed by the learned counsel for Respondents in all these cases which is as under:

Appeal No.	Complaint No.	Date of Birth	Date of entry into service	Date of retirement	Past service	Actual service	Age as on retirement
508/ 2018	146/2017	01.10.1952	1978	10.11.2002 and opted for pension 05.09.2003	17	07	51
509/ 2018	147/2017	01.06.1952	1979	11.07.2002	08	13	50
510/ 2018	149/2017	04.04.1949	1973	20.09.2006	22	10	57
511/ 2018	150/2017	10.05.1951	1974	25.02.2000 and opted for pension 23.03.2005	21	04	54
512/ 2018	151/2017	01.06.1950	1971	27.12.1999 and opted for pension 01.06.2000	24	04	50
513/ 2018	152/2017	30.08.1951	1974	01.04.2004 and opted for pension 07.01.2005	21	08	54

 

Thus, it is observed from the contents of the above table, the complainants in all these Appeals have retired before superannuation by rendering pensionable service of more than 20 years and complied with the condition as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995, as it stood before 24.07.2009 and hence, they are eligible for weightage of two years.

09.     With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension for all these Complainants, it is seen that all the Complainants have retired earlier to 15.06.2007 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007. 

10.     Thus taking into consideration of the fact that in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 28.09.1984 in the case of Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1984 Law Suit (SC) 270, wherein, it was held that “Retrospective amendment of the Rule curtailing amount of pension so payable : Pension: Hyderabad General Clauses Act 1308 F Section 2(22) : States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1945) Section 115 (7) proviso: Labour and services: Constitution of India Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1) (as stood prior to their omission on June 20, 1979) should be payable under the Rules as in force at the time of retirement: Although, previous sanction of Central Government under Section 115 of States Re-organisation Act for retrospective amendment of Rule 299(1) (b) of Hyderabad Civil  Service Rules not required where the person affected retiring prior to the appointed day stipulated under the Act”. 

And also the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur Vs Vasanth Madhav Kerur and others in Revision Petition No.765/2013 wherein, it was held that “the aggregated past service and actual service (period of service form 16.11.1995 onwards) has to be considered for the purpose of calculation of weightage of two years”.

 

11.     Thus, with the above observation, this Commission is of the considered view that all the above Complainants are entitled for revision of their monthly pension.  Further, the fact remains that the Complainants 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 3% 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.  In such view of the matter, the act of OP in not revising pension of the Complainants amounts to deficiency in service.

12.     Under the above circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum is just and proper.  However, we are of the considered opinion that awarding of interest @ 10% p.a is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeals are allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned Order dated 22.02.2018 passed in Complaint Nos.146/2017, 147/2017, 149/2017, 150/2017, 151/2017 and 152/2017 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned.  The cost and compensation of Rs.2,000/- awarded to each of the Complainant awarded by the District Forum shall also remain un-disturbed and the Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this Order.

 

13.     The statutory deposit in all these Appeals is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

14.     Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.508/2018 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

 

 

15.     Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

 

 

                                                         

                                                                         President

*s