Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1175/2016

The Regional Provident Fund - Complainant(s)

Versus

Javaregowda B M - Opp.Party(s)

Swetha A

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :30.05.2016

Date of Disposal :27.02.2023

 

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

 

DATED:27.02.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.1175/2016

 

 

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan
Regional Office
No 13, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road
Post Box No.25146
Bengaluru – 560025
(By Mrs Swetha Anand, Advocate)                                     Appellant

 

                           -Versus-

Mr Javaregowda B M
S/o late Mudalgirigowda
Aged about 60 years

# Bannur Road
Near Kannikaparameshvari Temple
Mandya                                                                            Respondent

 

        :ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 16.12.2014 passed in Complaint No.213/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandya (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the Arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant.   It is observed that Notice on Respondent has been returned un-served with postal endorsement “insufficient address” and no further steps has been taken in this regard, hence, the arguments of Respondent is taken as heard

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP1 to re-calculate the Pension by giving weightage of 2 years; to pay the difference amount of Pension from the date of Complainant’s Retirement with interest @ 9% p.a and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant within 3 months from the Date of the Order, etc.,  Dismissed the Complaint as against OP2/The Mysugar Company Ltd., Mandya.

 

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP1/Appellant herein, is in Appeal inter-alia, contending amongst other grounds that, the Complainant had opted for Reduced Pension, hence, he is not eligible for 2 years of weightage under Para 10(2) of EPS 1995, hence, direction of the District Forum is contrary to the statute and same in untenable.  The District Forum ought not to have awarded interest @ 12% p.a on the difference of pension amount on revision and hence, seeks to set aside the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum.

5.       Let us examine, whether the Complainant is entitled for benefit of weightage of 2 years and other benefits? Whether any deficiency in service on the part of OP?

6.       On perusal of the records, it is observed that Complainant is a member of OP1’s Pension Scheme and had opted for Family Pension Scheme 1971; he has been contributing to Employees Pension scheme 1995 and he is a retired employee of Mysugar Company Ltd., Mandya, and retired from the service on 21.11.2005 by rendering 24 years of service viz., past service of 14 years and actual service of 10 years.  As per amendment to Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995, the Complainant complied with the condition of Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995 as it stood, hence, he is eligible for weightage of 2 years.   With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension, it is observed that the Complainant retired from the service before 15.06.2007 hence, his Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995. Further if the Complainant has not been Superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations and should have subjected his Members to their entitlement for Reduced Pension at reduction rate of 3%, to the extent the age of the Members falls short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995.

7.    Thus, the Impugned Order directing Appellant to re-fix the pension of the Complainant by giving weightage of two years is just and proper.  However, in our view, awarding of interest @ 9% p.a is slightly on higher side and reducing the same to 8% p.a which would meet the ends of justice.  With regard to 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.

          With the above observation, Appeal is allowed in part.  OP directed to re-calculate the Monthly Pension payable to the Complainant by giving weightage of two years with arrears as per Employees Pension Scheme 1995 with interest @ 8% p.a and cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant within 3 months from the date of this Order.

          The statutory deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

 

 

 

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

 

 

                                                                      President 

*s