THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 1452/2017
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Sub Regional Office, NH-4, Old Madras Road,
K.R.Puram, Bangaluru-560 036.
….Appellant/s.
(By Sri/Smt. Nandita Haldipur, Adv.,)
-Versus-
Subbaraju S/o D. Pappanna
Age 64 years, R/o Tulasiram
Building, Swarna Nagar,
7th Cross, Robertsonpet, KGF,
Kolar District.
(By Sri/Smt. Laxminarayana, Adv.,)
……….. Respondent/s
: ORDERS:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant/Opposite Party filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated:05/06/2017 passed by the Kolar District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.66/2016, which allowed the complaint directing the Opposite Party to re-fix the pension amount of the complainant by adding 2 years of weightage and also to pay the arrears along with 12% interest from the date of retirement of the complainant till realization along with cost of Rs.2,000/- and submits that the complainant is a member under the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 w.e.f. 01/11/1996 vide EPF Code No.KN/19540 and submits that the complainant was an Employee of the Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Bangarpet and he retired from the Bank on 29/02/2012 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. 01/11/1996. Therefore, the Act become applicable to the Bank only from 01/11/1996 and the complainant became a member of the said scheme only from 01/11/1996 . As per the return of the Employees filed by the Employer, the date of coverage of the establishment is shown as 01/11/1996 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.1,250/- to the complainant. The complainant has severed pensionable service up-to 13 years 5 months, whereas the minimum required service is 20 years and this complainant has not completed the said years of service as contemplated under Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. Therefore, they have declined to provide two years weightage, In spite of that, the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed them as stated above.
2. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Commission.
3. We have heard the arguments of both sides.
4. On perusal of the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order, we noticed that, admittedly the complainant is an Employee of Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., who was covered under the Provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Misc Provision Act 1995 1w.e.f. 01/11/1996. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is receiving monthly pension of Rs.1,250/- from the Opposite Party.
5. The dispute raised by the complainant is that as per the amended provision, the complainant is eligible for two years weightage as he was returned at the age of 58 years, hence, sought for revised pension along with arrears.
6. We noticed here that the complainant has not completed twenty years of pensionable service. As per the records, the complainant has completed only 13 years, 5 months and 15 days of service. Therefore, re-fixing of the pension the Bank requirement of reposition of pension by providing two years weightage is not applicable to the complainant.
7. The appellant/Organization has fixed the pension as below:-
Monthly Member’s Pension = Pensionable Salary X Pension able Service
70
= 6500 X 13,460
70
= 1,249.85/-
Monthly Pension = Rs.1,250/-
And he had attained the age of 58 years as on 18/04/2010. The membership under the Employees Provident Scheme 1995 is only the members who attain 58 years as per Para 6(a) of the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. Thus, he is not eligible to get two years of weightage. But the District Commission not considered the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act 1995 and made an error by directing the appellant to revise the pension, which is not in accordance with law. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above reasons, the appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:05.06.2017 passed by Kolar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.66/2016 is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant before the Commission below is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Party.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
