Karnataka

StateCommission

A/520/2017

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gangaiah S S/o Sanjeevaiah, - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

17 May 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :23.02.2017

                                                             Date of Disposal :17.05.2023

 

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

 

DATED:17.05.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.516/2017 to 520/2017

 

 

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Regional Office: Peenya

No.62, 3^rd Cross, Industrial Suburb

Yeshwanthpur 2^nd Stage

Bengaluru-560 022                                                       Appellant

(By Mrs M.R.Shalamala, Advocate)   

 

(Appellant is same in both the Appeals)

 

-Versus-

 

1. Appeal No.516/2017

1. Mr Mahalingappa

    S/o Late C.R.Lakshaiah

    Aged about 58 years

    Devarayapatna

    New Extension

    Tumakuru -560 022

   (By Mr T.Ramaiah, Advocate)

 

   2. The General Manager

       HMT Watch Factory-4

       Devarayapatna

       Tumakuru                                                             Respondents

 

2. Appeal No.517/2017

    1. Mr. Nagararju T.S.

        S/o Late Siddalingappa

        Aged about 60 years

        Sri Chenabasaveshwara Nilaya

        Sharadadevi Nagara

        Belabumba Road

        Tumakuru

        (By Mr T.Ramaiah, Advocate)

 

2. The General Manager

    HMT Watch Factory-4

    Devarayapatna

    Tumakuru                                                                Respondents

 

3. Appeal No.518/2017                  

1. Mr. Hanumantharaya T

    S/o Late Thimappa

    Sanjay Gandhi Nagar

    Kyathsandra

    Tumakuru

    (By Mr T.Ramaiah, Advocate)

 

2. The General Manager

    HMT Watch Factory-4

    Devarayapatna

    Tumakuru                                                                Respondents

 

4. Appeal No.519/2017

1. Mr.Ravi Chandra Naik

    S/o Late Thimmaiah

    Sri Venkateshwara Nilaya

    Behind Water Tank

    Nethaji Road

    Vidya Nagar

    Tumkauru-572 102

    (By Mr T.Ramaiah, Advocate)

         

 2. The General Manager

     HMT Watch Factory-4

     Devarayapatna

     Tumakuru                                                              Respondents

 

5. Appeal No.520/2017                  

1. Mr Gangaiah S

    S/o Sanjeevaiah

    6^th Cross, Sri Krishna Nagar

    SIT Extension

    Tumakuru-572 102         

 

2. The General Manager

    HMT Watch Factory-4

    Devarayapatna

    Tumakuru                                                                 Respondents

 

                                     

                                    :COMMON ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       These Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Common Order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Complaint Nos.58/2016, 61/2016, 62/2016, 59/2016 and 57/2016 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkuru (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Perused the Impugned Orders, Grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels on record.

 

3.       On Perusal of the records it reveals that the District Forum after enquiring into the matter, deemed it fit to allow the Complaint partly and directed the OP1 to re-calculate their entitled Monthly  pension as per Para 12(3) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995, by giving weightage of two years to all the Complainants and also extend the minimum assured benefit both in respect of past and present service with effect from their respective dates of retirement along with arrears of pension with interest @ 12% p.a, to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to each of the complainants and to pay annual relief as per Para 32 of EPS 1995.   The District Forum had also dismissed the Complaints as against OP2.

 

4.       Being aggrieved by this Order, OP1 - The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is in Appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously directed for re-fixation by granting weightage of two years in all the cases. Further contended that, in Appeal Nos.516/2017 & 517/2017, the Complainants had opted for Reduced Pension and retired prior to attaining the age of superannuation and had not put in 20 years of pensionable service, as such, they are not eligible for weightage of two years.   Further Appellant contended that they have granted weightage of two years to the Complainants in Appeal No.518 to 520/2017 and revised the pension.  Thus seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeals.

 

5.       Let us examine, the details of service particulars of each of the Complainants as per documents on record, which are as under :

Appeal No.	Complaint No.	Date of birth	Date of Joining	Date of retire-ment	Past service	Actual service	Age at exist
516/2017	58/2016	26.01.1959	25.04.1980	31.03.2003	15Y 06M 20D	07Y 04M 16D	44
517/2017	61/2016	20.06.1956	03.09.1979	31.03.2003	16Y 02M 12D	7Y 4M 16D	47
518/2017	62/2016	15.06.1952	20.08.1979	30.10.2010	16Y 02M 25D	14Y 01M 15D	58
519/2017	59/2016	05.07.1954	06.08.1979	31.07.2012	16Y 02M 14D	16Y 08M 16D	58
520/2017	57/2016	30.05.1957	30.03.1980	29.05.2015	16Y	20Y	58

 

On Perusal of the contents of the above table and as per Para 10 (2) of EPS as it stood before 24.07.2009, the PF members are required to fulfil the condition of, either attaining the age of 58 years or completion of pensionable service of 20 years, as on the date of their retirement. The Complainants in Appeal Nos.516/2017 & 517/2017 have retired from their service earlier to 24.07.2009, they are entitled for weightage of 2 years,  in as much as they had complied with the condition as laid down in Para 10 (2) of EPS, as it stood before the amendment to 24.07.2009.

As per Para 10 (2) of EPS as it stood after 24.07.2009, the PF members are required to fulfil the condition of attaining the age of 58 years and completion of pensionable service of 20 years, as on the date of retirement. Complainants in Appeal Nos.518/2017 to 520/2017 have retired from their service after the amendment to 24.07.2009, they are entitled for weightage of 2 years,  in as much as they had complied with both the condition as laid down in Para 10 (2) of EPS, as it stood after the amendment to 24.07.2009.

6.       With regard to the claim for eligibility of Monthly Pension of the Complainants it is seen that the Complainants in Appeal Nos.516/2017 & 517/2016 have retired before the amendment to 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995 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. 

Further, if the Complainants in Appeal Nos. 518/2017 to 520/2017 have retired after the amendment to 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995 and hence, their Monthly Pension also will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood after 15.06.2007.

Further, if the Complainants have not been superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995 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, to the extent the age of the Members qualifying for benefits under the PF scheme, falls short of 58 years.

 

7.       With regard to benefit under Para 32 of the Scheme i.e., Annual Relief, it is noticed that only the Central Government can grant such reliefs and not the OP, as such the same cannot be granted by the OP.

 

8.       It is not in dispute that the Complainant/Respondent in each of the case were employees of HMT Watch Factory, Tumkur and during their service they 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.  It is pertinent to note here that, the Appellant has not produced any cogent evidence to show that when they revised the Monthly Pension of the Complainants and paid the arrears.

 

9.       Thus, in view of the above observations, the Impugned Order requires to be modified only in so far as awarding of interest @ 12% p.a is concerned, which in our considered opinion is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal Nos.516/2017 to 520/2017 are allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned Common Order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Complaint Nos.58/2016, 61/2016, 62/2016, 59/2016 and 57/2016 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkuru is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned.  The cost of Rs.2,000/- awarded to each of the Complainants awarded by the District Forum shall remain un-disturbed and the Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this Order, if not already complied with.

 

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

11.     Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.516/2017 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

                                                         

 

                                                                          President

*s