Karnataka
StateCommission
A/109/2017
The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation - Complainant(s)
Versus
Mukutmasa - Opp.Party(s)
Nandita Haldipur
24 Jul 2023
ORDER
Date of Filing :13.01.2017
Date of Disposal :24.07.2023
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED :24.07.2023
PRESENT
APPEAL Nos.95/2017 to 119/2017
The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organisation .
Sub-Regional Office,
Aland Road No.97,
Behind Remand Home, Gulbarga
(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate) Appellant
-Versus-
1. APPEAL No.95/2017
1. Mr Lalsab
S/o Mr Husensab Surapur
Aged : 66 years,
R/o Hiremorab
Tq : Muddebihal,
District Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office, Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
2. APPEAL No.96/2017
1. Mr Rajashekar .
S/o Mr Irappa Putarakatti
Aged : 62 years,
R/o House No.873/2D,
Ganga Boudi,
Near Dildar Hotel,
Danamam Nivas,
Dist : Bijapur - 586 101.
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office, Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
3. APPEAL No.97/2017
1. Mr Dattatray
S/o Mr Pandurang Padaki, .
Aged : 70 years,
R/o Killa Muddebihal,
Tq : Muddebihal,
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Secretary
Khadi Gram Udyog Sangh
Talikot Road,
Muddehihal, Bijapur District
4. APPEAL No.98/2017
1. Mr Sangappa
S/o Mr Yemanappa Hagari,
Aged : 64 years,
R/o Gangur,
Tq : Muddebihal
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office, Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
5. APPEAL No.99/2017
1. Mr Badashah
S/o Mr Abdulsha Naikodi
Aged : 64 years,
R/o Mahantanagar
Muddebihal, Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
6. APPEAL No.100/2017
1. Mr Shivarudrappa .
S/o Mr Irappa Kittur,
Aged : 67 Years,
R/o Masutinagar
Near Munsiff Quarters,
Muddebihal
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate) Respondents
7. APPEAL No.101/2017
1. Mr Bhimsen
S/o Mr Narasingrao Kulkarni
Aged : 75 years,
R/o Near Raghavendraswami Temple
Mahantesh Nagar, Muddebihal,
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
8. APPEAL No.102/2017
1. Mr Hanumanthappa
S/o Mr Yalagurdappa Badawadgi,
Aged : 79 years
Occ : Retd KSRTC Employee,
R/o Sarur, Tq Muddebihal
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
Respondents
9. APPEAL No.103/2017
1. Mr Husensab
S/o Mr Kallasha Makandar
Aged : 63 years
R/o Bharathpeth Galli
Muddebihal
Dist : Bijapur.
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office, Bijapur
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate) Respondents
10. APPEAL No.104/2017
1. Mr Siddanabasappa .
S/o Mr Gurulingappa S Ajjan,
Aged : 66 years,
R/o Bidarakundi,
Tq Muddebihal
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur
Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
11.APPEAL No.105/2017
1. Mr Ningappa
S/o Mr Mahantappa Kamalpur
Aged : 64 years,
R/o House No.119,
HUDCO Colony,
Muddebihal,
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
12. APPEAL No.106/2017
1. Mr Hanmappa
S/o Mr Basappa Meti,
Aged : 63 years,
R/o Sangameshwar Colony Nagar,
Meena Masjid, Tq : Muddebihal,
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate) Respondents
13. APPEAL No.107/2017
1. Mr Sabanna
S/o Mr Hanamappa Yakanchi
Aged : 70 years
R/o Devara Hulagabal
Tq : Muddebihal
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bijapur Division
Divisional Office
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
14. APPEAL No.108/2017
1. Mr Bandigisa
S/o Mr Kashisab Naikodi
Aged : 65 years,
R/o Mehaboob Nagar Galli,
Tq : Muddebihal
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
15. APPEAL No.109/2017
1. Mr Mukutmasa
S/o Mr Nabisa Pinjra
Aged : 66 years
R/o Pinjar Galli
Near Jumma Masjid
Tq : Muddebihal
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
16. APPEAL No.110/2017
1. Mr Nandappa
S/o Mr Amarapp Gangangoudar
Aged : 65 years
R/o Gangangalli Nalatawad
Tq : Muddebihal
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
17. APPEAL No.111/2017
1. Mr Hanamantaraya .
S/o Mr Subbarao Nadagouda
Aged : 63 years
R/o HUDCO Colony
Muddebihal,
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
18. APPEAL No.112/2017
1. Mr Bheemappa
S/o Mr Yemunappa Woddar,
Aged : 62 years,
R/o Banoshi Post,
Kebageri
Tq : Muddebihal,
Dist : Bijapur.
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
19. APPEAL No.113/2017
1. Mr Gurupadayya
S/o Mr Shivyogayya Shivayogimath
Aged : 68 years,
R/o Kavadimatti,
Tq : Muddebihal
Dist : Bijapur
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur
Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
20. APPEAL No.114/2017
1. Mr Malakajappa
S/o Mr Siddappa Poulishi
Aged : 62 years
R/o Basavanilaya,
Near APMC Yard,
Muddebihal, Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
21. APPEAL No.115/2017
1. Mr Basayya
S/o Mr Veerabhadrayya Hiremath
Aged : 78 years,
Occ : Retd., KSRTC Employee
R/o Muranal Village,
Dist : Bijapur
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
( Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
22. APPEAL No.116/2017
1. Mr Balaji
S/o Mr Annarao Nadagoudar
Aged : 61 years
R/o C/o S K Kulkarni House
Behind Govt Polytechnic College,
Vidya Nagar, Bagalkot Road,
Dist : Bijapur - 586 101.
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The General Manager
Godavari Sugar Ltd.,
Sameera Wadi Mudhol Road,
Tq : Mudhol,
Dist : Bagalkot Respondents
(By Mr P S Manjunath, Advocate)
23. APPEAL No.117/2017
1. Mr Gundu
S/o Mr Bhimarao Joshi
Aged : 70 years
R/o House No.124,
Devatageri Galli,
Near Rayaramath
Dist : Bijapur - 586 104.
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The General Manager
M/s Godavari Sugar Ltd.,
Someerawadi Mudhol Road,
Tq : Mudhol
Dist : Bagalkot Respondents
(By Mr P S Manjunath, Advocate)
24. APPEAL No.118/2017
1. Mr Manohar
S/o Mr Sangappa Kajagar
Aged : 59 years
R/o Nadagouda, Adde Indi Road,
Dist : Bijapur.
(By Mr Yogesh L Hiremath, Advocate)
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office,
Bijapur Respondents
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate)
25. APPEAL No.119/2017
1. Mr Mallikarjun
S/o Mr Revansiddappa Malage,
Aged : 65 years
R/o Old Kumbar Oni
Near Ambabhavani Temple,
Dist : Bijapur
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC,
Bijapur Division,
Divisional Office, Bijapur
(Ms Ratna N Shivayoginath, Advocate) Respondents
: ORDER :
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
02. This Commission heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels on record. Since inspite of service of Notice from this Commission on Respondent No.1 none appeared on behalf of the Respondents No.1 in Appeal Nos.96, 113 and 119/2017, hence, their arguments are taken as heard.
03. The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, deemed it fit to allow the Complaints in part and directed the OP1, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to revise the monthly pension payable to each of the Complainants by giving weightage of two years and also extend minimum assured benefits, both in respect of past and present service, with effect from the date of retirement of the each Complainants along with arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. OP1 was directed to give annual relief as per Para 31 of EPS 1995 to the all the Complainants with interest at the rate of 6% p.a with Rs.1,000/- each to all the Complainants towards cost of the litigation expenses and mental agony etc., Further, OPs 2, 3, 4 & 5 were discharged from their liability in all these cases.
04. Against this Order, OP1 is in appeal contends that the District Forum passed the Impugned Order without taking into consideration of the fact put forth in the Objection Statement. The District Forum failed to note that the minimum pension is only aggregate of pension and not independently for past service pension and pensionable service pension. Further contended that District Forum does not have jurisdiction to interpret any rule/law of EPS 1995 regarding payment of pension to the Respondents. That directing calculation of pension by taking minimum pension for past service being in respect of interpretation of the EPS 1995 cannot be held as deficiency in service. The District Forum failed to take into consideration that Appellant has rightly calculated the pension to be paid to the Respondents even granted weightage and paid arrears, but still was directed to pay weightage with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. District Forum failed to consider that the weightage has been granted after it has receive Head Office Circular and hence, they cannot be directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of retirement. Hence, Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeals.
05. Let us examine the details of service particulars of each of the Complainants, as per the records in all these cases, which is as under :
Appeal No. | Complaint No. |
Date of Birth |
Date of entry into service | Date of retirement | Past service | Actual service |
Age as on retirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
95/2017 | 26/2014 | 01.07.1958 | 01.01.1971 | 10.09.2009 | 12 Y | 13Y | 58 |
96/2017 | 104/2014 | 31.07.1952 | 20.04.1974 | 30.07.2010 | 21Y | 14Y 8M | 58 |
97/2017 | 22/2014 | 01.06.1944 | 01.01.1962 | 31.12.2001 | - | - | - |
98/2017 | 24/2014 | 01.06.1950 | 01.01.1971 | 16.08.2006 | 19 | 11 | 58 |
99/2017 | 25/2014 | 08.05.1950 | 01.01.1972 | 31.05.2008 | 24 | 12 | 58 |
100/2017 | 27/2014 | 13.03.1947 | 01.01.1971 | 31.03.2005 | 19 | 09 | 58 |
101/2017 | 29/2014 | 24.06.1939 | 01.01.1971 | 30.06.1997 | - | - | 58 |
102/ 2017 | 31/2014 | 01.08.1935 | 01.01.1971 | 31.07.1993 | 18 | - | 58 |
103/2017 | 32/2014 | 10.12.1949 | 01.12.1974 | 31.12.2007 | 21 | 12 | 58 |
104/2017 | 33/2014 | 07.01.1949 | 06.01.1977 | 05.01.2006 | 19 | 10Y 01M | 58 |
105/2017 | 34/2014 | 30.05.1950 | 01.01.1971 | 31.05.2008 | 19 | 13 | 58 |
106/2017 | 37/2014 | 01.06.1950 | 01.11.1976 | 16.08.2006 | 20 | 10 | 58 |
107/2017 | 39/2014 | 10.01.1944 | 01.01.1971 | 09.01.2002 | 19Y 2M | 6 Y 1 M | 58 |
108/2017 | 40/2014 | 01.06.1949 | 01.01.1971 | 31.05.2007 | 19 | 11Y 6M | 58 |
109/2017 | 42/2014 | 01.04.1948 | 01.01.1971 | 30.03.2006 | 24 | 10Y 4M | 58 |
110/2017 | 43/2014 | 01.06.1949 | 01.01.1971 | 31.05.2007 | - | - | 58 |
111/2017 | 44/2014 | 27.03.1951 | 01.01.1979 | 26.03.2009 | 15 Y 11M | 13 Y 4M | 58 |
112/2017 | 45/2014 | 01.06.1952 | 25.05.1982 | 03.05.2012 | 13 | 14 Y 6M | 60 |
113/2017 | 46/2014 | 01.08.1945 | 01.10.1975 | 31.07.2003 | 20 Y | 7Y 8M | 58 |
114/2017 | 47/2014 | 01.06.1951 | 01.01.1971 | 31.05.2009 | 19 | 13Y 6M | 58 |
115/2017 | 48/2014 | 21.02.1936 | 08.08.1964 | 29.02.1994 | - | - | 58 |
116/2017 | 101/2014 | 14.02.1953 | 14.07.1977 | 15.04.2005 | 20 | 9Y 4M | 58 |
117/2017 | 102/2014 | 16.01.1944 | 16.09.1971 | 21.01.2004 | 21 | 6Y 2M | 58 |
118/2017 | 103/2014 | 27.01.1955 | 22.07.1976 | 30.04.2012 | 21 | 6 Y 2M | 58 |
119/2017 | 105/2014 | 15.06.1949 | 20.04.1974 | 30.06.2007 | 18 | 11Y 6M | 58 |
Thus, it is observed from the contents of the above table, that the Complainants in Appeal Nos. 97 to 111, 113 to 117 & 119/2017 have complied with the conditions 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.
Further the complainants in Appeal Nos.95, 96, 112 & 118/2017 have complied with both the condition as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995, as it stood after 24.07.2009 and hence, they are eligible for weightage of two years.
06. With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension for the Complainants in Appeal Nos. 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 115, 116 & 117 of 2017, 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.
Similarly, the eligibility of Monthly Pension for the Complainants in Appeal Nos. 95, 96, 103, 105, 111, 112, 114, 118 & 119/2017, it is seen that all the Complainants have retired after 15.06.2007 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood after 15.06.2007.
Further, the fact remains that, if the Complainants have not been superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations and should have subjected these Members to their entitlement for Reduced monthly Pension at reduction rate of 3% or 4% for every year of short fall in their service, as the age of the Members qualifying for benefits under the PF scheme, falls short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995.
7. Thus taking into consideration of the fact that in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 28.09.1984 in the case of Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1984 Law Suit (SC) 270, wherein, it was held that “Retrospective amendment of the Rule curtailing amount of pension so payable : Pension: Hyderabad General Clauses Act 1308 F Section 2(22) : States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1945) Section 115 (7) proviso: Labour and services: Constitution of India Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1) (as stood prior to their omission on June 20, 1979) should be payable under the Rules as in force at the time of retirement: Although, previous sanction of Central Government under Section 115 of States Re-organisation Act for retrospective amendment of Rule 299(1) (b) of Hyderabad Civil Service Rules not required where the person affected retiring prior to the appointed day stipulated under the Act”.
Further, the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur Vs Vasanth Madhav Kerur and others in Revision Petition No.765/2013, it was held that “the aggregate past service and actual service (period of service form 16.11.1995 onwards) has to be considered for the purpose of calculation of weightage of two years”.
08. 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.
09. On perusal of Appeal Papers it is observed that the Appellant has produced copy of the order of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka wherein it is seen that the appellant has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalburgi Bench in all the 25 matters, by way of preferring Writ Petition wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held that ‘Petitioner is reserved with liberty to assail the impugned order in an Appeal before KSCDRC. Time taken in prosecution of this Petition from 01.03.2016 shall stand excluded, if the alternative remedy is availed within a period of one month’’ and accordingly Petitions are disposed off as withdrawn. All contentions are left open.
10. Thus the Appellant is very well aware of the Appeal procedure to be followed under the CP Act 1986 and this Act is an enactment in itself. Obviously and necessarily to circumvent the delay in preferring these Appeals against the order the District Forum, which attain its the date of finality on 11.02.2016 i.e., after the stipulated period of 30 days.
11. Further it is also observed that the Appellant has not filed the condonation of delay application. It is pertinent to observe that obviously there is a delay of 336 days in preferring these appeals. On perusal of the order sheet, it is observed that an office endorsement to the effect that ‘there is a delay of 341 and 336 days’, which was subsequently ‘struck off’ and a fresh endorsement has been made which reads ‘the Appeal is filed as per order of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.200724/2016 and 200812-835.2915(L-PF) dated 14.12.2016”. Hence, same is accepted.
12. Thus, with the above observation, this Commission is of the considered view that all the above Complainants are entitled for revision of their entitled Monthly Pension. In such view of the matters, the Impugned Order is just and proper and same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, Appeals are stands Dismissed.
13. The statutory deposit in all these Appeals is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.
14. Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.95/2017 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.
15. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
President
*s
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.