Karnataka

StateCommission

A/2991/2016

The Assistant Provident Fund - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lingangouda Patil - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

21 Mar 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :18.11.2016

Date of Disposal :21.03.2023

 

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

 

DATED:21.03.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.2991/2016

 

 

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan

Sub-Regional Office

Aland Road

Gulbarga-585 101                                                                       Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

                        -Versus-

1. Sri Lingangouda Patil

    S/o Sri Guranagouda Patil

    Aged 62 years

    R/o Quarters No.6

    4/1, ZCC Colony

    Shabad, Chittapur Taluk

    Gulbarga District

 

2. The General Manager

    M/s Jay Pee Cements

    Shahabad

 

3. The General Manager

    M/s Zawar Cements

    Shahabad                                                                  Respondents

         

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the OP aggrieved by the Order dated 10.08.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint No.143/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kalburgi (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the Arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant. Notice on Respondent 1 has been returned un-served, Notice on Respondents 2 & 3 have not been returned and no further needful steps have been taken by the Appellant, taking into consideration the vintage of the matter and age of the Complaint/Respondent 1, the service of Notice in this case has been dispensed with, to avoid further delay and the arguments of Respondents is taken as heard.

3.       The Appellant/OP The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has contended that Respondent No.1 - Sri Lingangouda Patil has left the service prior to attaining the age of 58 years and had opted for Reduced Pension by receiving pension from last several years has not completed 20 years of pensionable service and the District Forum has erroneously come to the conclusion that he has put in pensionable service of 20 years and eligible for weightage of two years.

 

4.       On Perusal of the records it reveals that the Complainant worked at Janata Bazaar, Gulbarga and retired from the service, after attaining the age of 58 years.  From the details of PPO as appearing at Para 2 of the Impugned Order, it is observed that he joined the service on 01.04.1973 in Janata Bazar, Gulbarga and retired from the service on 16.04.2004 by rendering past service of 23 years and actual service of 8 years 4 months & 16 days.   The Appellant has taken a stand that Complainant retired at the age of 57 years and not 58 years. In as much as the stand of the Appellant is not backed up by any documentary support and per contra, the observations of the District Forum as appearing in Para 16 of the District Forum is that the Date of Birth of Complainant is 02.04.1946 and not as per OP records i.e., on 02.04.1947 hence, he retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation.  Thus, the Complainant has retired from the service on attaining the age of 58 years by rendering service of more than 20 years and is entitled for weightage of two years.  In the circumstances, the District Forum allowing the Complaint in part and directing the OP to re-calculate the pension payable to the Complainant by giving weightage of two years and also extending minimum assured benefits, both in respect of past and actual service with effect from date of retirement with interest @  6% p.a, arrears of pension and cost of Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony within eight weeks from the date of Order is just and proper and same does not call for any interference.  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.

5.       With the above observations, the Appeal stands Dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

6.       The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

 

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

 

                                                                      President

*s