Karnataka

StateCommission

A/396/2014

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Md. Abdul Nayeem - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

19 May 2023

ORDER

                                                                  Date of Filing :22.03.2014

                                                             Date of Disposal :19.05.2023

 

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

 

DATED:19.05.2023

 

 

PRESENT

 

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

APPEAL Nos.396/2014 to 398/2014

 

 

 

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Sub-Regional Office

3^rd Floor, SLV Towers

Parvathi Nagar

Bellary                                                                             Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

       -Versus-

 

1. Appeal No.396/2014

    Mr Md. Abdul Nayeem

    Major
    R/o Near Yassin Sab Mosque,

    Ward No.24, Door No.19,

    Cowl Bazar,

    Bellary District - 583102                                          Respondent

    (By Mr T.Rukmangadhachar, Advocate)

 

2. Appeal No.397/2014

    Mr R.Vasudevan

    S/o. Mr K.Raman Nair
    Aged 61 years,

    R/o. D.No.23,

    Ward No. 30,

    Soniya Nasar,

    T.B. Dam, Hospet

    Bellary District -583225                                             Respondent 

    (By Mr R.N.Deshpande, Advocate)                                                                   

 

 

3. Appeal No.398/2014

    Mr Krishnappa

    S/o. Mr Parameshwarappa Badiger
    Age 61 years,

    R/o. H.R.S. Colony,

    27 Ward, At Post Gangavathi,

    Koppal District                                                     Respondent 

 

: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 Orders dated 17.12.2013 and 10.12.2013 in Consumer Complaint Nos.268/2013, 270/2013 and 185/2013 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bellary (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.

 

2.       Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant and Respondent in Appeal No.396/2014 and 397/2014.   It is observed that since inspite of service of Notice on the Respondent in Appeal No.398/2014 none appeared on behalf of the Respondent, hence his arguments is taken as heard.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter allowed the complaint in part and directed the OP to refix the pension of the complainants as per Para 12(3)/12(4)/12(5) R/w Para 10(2) of the EPS 1995, as applicable to individual complaints by giving weightage of two years and issue revised pension payment order and pay the pension accordingly from the date as applicable and arrears of pension accordingly, from the date as applicable and arrears of pension amount due shall be paid to them with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the complaint till its realisation, to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

4.       The Appellant/The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in these Appeals contended that the District Forum has erroneously held that the Complainants are eligible for weightage of 2 years and pensionable service is to be calculated as ‘service’ from 16.11.1995, which in these cases, complainants/Respondents not rendered more than 20 years.   The District Forum failed to take into consideration of the fact that, the Appellant has rightly calculated the pension to be paid to the Respondents and erroneously directed to re-fix the pension of the Complainants.  Thus Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeals.

 

5.       On perusal of records, it reveals that the Respondents/ Complainants enrolled as Member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1971 and subsequently, continued to contribute their contribution to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995.  The allegations of the Complainants are that, the OP/Appellant failed to settle their entitled Monthly Pension as per provision of EPS 1995. Per contra, OP pleaded that they had settled the pension of the complainant within 30 days and the question of payment of interest @ 12% p.a does not arise, since pension of the Complainants has been fixed as per the provision of Para 10 & 12 of the EPS 1995.  Hence, there is no discrepancy in the fixation of the pension by the OP.

 

6.       Let us examine the details of service particulars of each of the Complainants as per documents on record in all the cases, which is as under:

Appeal No.	Complaint No.	Date of Birth	Date of retirement	Past service	Actual service
396/2017	268/2013	21.10.1948	19.05.2003	16	07Y   06M 03D
397/2017	270/2013	01.09.1952	20.04.2002	23	06Y 05M 04D
398/2017	185/2013	04.01.1952	24.01.2005	17	09Y 02M 08D

 

It is observed from the contents of the above table, the Complainants in all the Appeals have retired from their respective services 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.

7.       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. 

 

8.       It is pertinent to note that, if the Complainants have not been Superannuated on attaining the age of 58 years of service, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995 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.

9.       From the above observations, it is clear that all the Complainants are eligible for weightage of two years and the Appellant had granted two years of weightage and had also revised the Monthly Pension of the Pensioners, but, the Appellant had paid the arrears of the pension to the Complainants belatedly and that too after the Complainants escalating their grievances and in our considered opinion, certainly this act of Appellant amounts to deficiency in service.

 

10.     In so far as the rate of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the rate of interest awarded is meagre and same requires to be modified and accordingly, interest rate is revised as 8.25% per annum it is appropriate that impugned order is to be modified. Hence, the following

       ORDER

 

Appeal No.396/2014 to 398/2014 is disposed off.  Consequently, impugned Order dated 17.12.2013 and 10.12.2013 in Consumer Complaint Nos.268/2013, 270/2013 and 185/2013 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bellary is hereby modified directing the OP/Appellant to pay interest at 8.25% p.a on the arrears amount from the date of the complaint till its realisation.  The cost and compensation awarded by the District Forum remains undisturbed.

 

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

 

          Return the LCRs forthwith to the District Commission.

 

          Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.396/2014 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

 

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

 

 

                                                                     President

*s