BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1453/2017
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, NH-4, Old Madras Road, K.R. Puram, Bengaluru 560 036. (By Mrs. Nandita Haldipur) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Sri H. Hanumanthappa, S/o Veerappa, Aged about 64 years, R/o No.34, Kalahasthipura Village, Kembodi Post, Kolar Taluk & District. (By Sri Dinesh.S.Kadlas) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.05.06.2017 passed in CC.No.98/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolar.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that complainant is a member under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 w.e.f. 01/10/1996 vide EPF Code No.KN/19427 and submits that the complainant was an Employee of the Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Kolar and he retired from the Bank on 31/03/2012 on attaining the age of 60 years. The said Bank was covered under the Provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act w.e.f. 01/10/1996. Therefore, the Act become applicable to the Bank only from 01/10/1996 and the complainant became a member of the said scheme from 01/10/1996 . As per the return of the Employees filed by the Employer, the date of coverage of the establishment is shown as 01/10/1996 and the complainant applied for monthly pension in form No.10D and this Opposite Party accordingly after calculating had sanctioned the monthly pension at Rs.1,661/- to the complainant. The complainant has served 35 years of service, whereas as per Provident Fund Act, 1952, “a person who serves for more than 20 years is entitled for 2 years of weightage while calculating the pension benefits”. But the Opposite Party without considering 2 years weightage has calculated the pension at Rs.1,661/-. Thereafter on detailed verification, it was found that the monthly pension was fixed erroneously. Therefore, the monthly pension was refixed at Rs.1,338/- by the Opposite Party vide Pension Payment Order No.PY/KRP/ 00032219 dt.31.01.2017. According to Opposite Party, there was no eligible past service rendered by the complainant under Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, the authority has sanctioned pension to the complainant is in accordance with Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Therefore, the Opposite Party declined to provide two years weightage. In spite of that, the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to re-fix the pension of the complainant by adding 2 years of weightage and also to pay arrears with 12% interest from the date of retirement of the complainant, till realization along with costs.
3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments.
4. 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 is an employee of the Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd, Kolar and the said bank covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provision Act w.e.f. 01.10.1996 under EPF Code No.KN/19427. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent had applied for monthly pension and accordingly, he is receiving monthly pension of Rs.1,661/- from the appellant with effect from 26.03.2010. But on detailed verification of records, it was found that the monthly pension had fixed erroneously and refixed at Rs.1,338/- vide Pension Payment Order No.PY/KRP/ 00032219 dt.31.01.2017 with effect from 26.03.2010 as per Provisions of EPS Act, 1995. The allegations of respondent is that as per amendment provisions, he is eligible for two years weightage as he was joined for service on 12.09.1997 and serving 35 years of service and retired on 31.03.2012 (on completion of 60 years). But as per Opposite Party, the respondent has completed 58 years on 25.03.2010 which is after amendment dt.24.07.2009 Para.10-2 and he had not completed 60 years of service and 20 years of pensionable service. Therefore, the respondent is not eligible for two years of weightage.
5. Perused the order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that the District Commission held that the respondent has not produced any documents to show that he was the member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971. Moreover, the respondent has not completed 20 years of pensionable service. As per records, the respondent has completed only 13 years 4 months 25 days of services. Therefore, the service rendered prior to applicability of EPF and MP Act, 1952 have not been considered for calculation of pensionary benefits. As per appellant, fixed pension is as below;
Monthly Member’s Pension = Pensionable Salary x Pensionable Service
70
= 6125 x 13
70
= 1137.50
Monthly Pension = Rs.1,138/-
6. Perused the appeal memo and order passed by the District Commission, the respondent has attained the age of 58 years in 25.03.2010 and the membership under the Employees Provident Scheme, 1995 is only to the members who attained 58 years and/or who has rendered 20 years of pensionable service or more. Pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightable of two years.
7. In the present case, the respondent has attained the age of 58 years, but, he has not completed 20 years of pensionable service as per Paragraph 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. Thus, as per our opinion the respondent is not eligible to get two years of weightage. However, the District Commission not considered the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1995 and made an error by directing the appellant to revise the pension which is not in accordance with law. Considering the facts and discussion made here, 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*
