Karnataka

StateCommission

A/529/2021

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ninga Shetty - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

13 Jul 2023

ORDER

                                                                 Date of Filing :20.07.2021

Date of Disposal :13.07.2023

 

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

 

DATED:13.07.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.529/2021

 

 

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation

Regional Office: Peenya

Bengaluru -560 022                                                        Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

 

                                               -Versus-

 

Mr Ninga Shetty

S/o Late Chennaiah

Aged: 66 years

R/o No.326, 2^nd Cross

Kempegowda Layout

Bengaluru-560 058                                                          Respondent

         

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 01.03.2021 passed in Complaint No.1011/2016 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (for short, the District Commission).

 

2.       This Commission heard the Arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant. Since, inspite of service of notice from this Commission on the Respondent, none appeared, his arguments is taken as heard.

3.       The District Commission after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part with a direction to the OP to re-fix the Pension of the Complainant as per Rule 12(4) R/W Rule 10 (2) of EPS 1995 from the date of retirement i.e., 31.12.2004 and balance pension amount be paid to the Complainant with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- etc.,

 

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter-alia, contending amongst other grounds that, the Appellant had granted weightage of two years by revising the pension and arrears also has been paid to the Complainant/Respondent.  The District Commission has erroneously directed the Appellant for re-fixing of the Pension of the Complainant, as per Para 12 (4) of EPS 1995 whereas, the Pension has been calculated as per Para 12(3) & Para 12(7) and is being paid to the Respondent.  Thus seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

5.       Let us examine, whether the Complainant is entitled for benefit of weightage of 2 years and other benefits as claimed?

On perusal of the details of service particulars of the Complainant/Respondent on record are as hereunder:

Appeal No.	Complaint No.	Date of birth	Date of retire-ment	Past service	Actual service	Age at exist
529/2021	1011/2016	15.05.1949	31.12.2004	21	9	55 years

 

          It is seen from the above, that the Complainant had retired from the service earlier to 24.07.2009 of amendment to Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 and rendered pensionable service of 20 years & more and in as much as he having complied with either of the conditions of amendment to Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995, he is eligible for weightage of 2 years and further, he entitled for his Monthly Pension to be calculated as per Para 12, as it stood before 15.06.2007.

6.       The point for consideration in this Appeal is whether Complainant/Respondent herein is entitled for fixation of entitled Monthly Pension as per Para 12 (3) or 12(4) of EPS 1995?

7.       Para 12 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 specifically deals with the procedure to be adopted for calculating monthly pension of an employee. 

8.      Para 12(2) stipulates the procedure to be adopted for a new entrant (employee appointed subsequent to 16.11.1995).  Para 12(3) deals with fixing up of the pension for an employee entered into service earlier to 16.11.1995 by considering the age and service of the employee as on 16.11.1995.  Thus, under proviso 12(3) of EPS 1995, for an employee who has put in certain years of service till 16.11.1995, certain amount is fixed depending upon the salary.  For ready reference the said column is excerpted hereunder:

 

        “The past service pension payable on completion of 58 years of age on the 16th November, 1995.

 

	Years of past service	Salary upto Rs. 2,500 per month	Salary more than Rs. 2,500 per month
	Upto 11 years
	More than 11 years but up to 15 years
	More than 15 years but less than 20 years
	Beyond 20 years

9.       For an employee who joined service earlier to 16.11.1995 and who retires after 16.11.1995 procedure to be followed is stipulated at Para 12(4) and 12(5).

10.    Said provision as originally stood both under 12(4) and 12(5), the aggregate of the pension arrived at para 12(2) and 12(3) was taken into consideration, but, under both the heads minimum amount was fixed as detailed there under.  For the sake of convenience the same is excerpted hereunder:

“12 (4) In the case of an employee who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and has attained the age of 48 years, but, less than 53 years on the 16th November 1995, the superannuation / retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of:-

1. Pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or Rs. 438/- per month whichever is more;
2. Past service benefit as provided in sub-paragraph (3) subject to a minimum of Rs. 600/- per month provided the past service is 24 years.  Provide further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefits taken together shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum of Rs. 325/- per month.

Para 12(5) In the case of an employee who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and who has attained the age of 53 years or more on the 16th November, 1995, the superannuation/retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of-

(a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 per month or Rs. 335/- per month whichever is more.

(b) past service benefits provided in sub-paragraph (3) subject to the minimum of Rs. 500/- per month, provided the past service is 24 years.  Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefits shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of Rs. 265/- per month.”

The said provisions, as originally stood both under 12(4) & 12(5), the aggregate of the pension arrived at para 12(2) and 12(3) was taken into consideration, but, under both the heads, the minimum amount was fixed as detailed there under. 

By way of amendment in the year 2007, while calculating the pension under Para 12(4) the minimum Pension for the past service as stipulated under 12(4)(b) is substituted by the pension arrived at para 12(3) itself.  Thus, the employees are deprived of the said minimum pension for calculation of the actual pension.

Para 12 (7) deals with A member, if he so desires, may be allowed to draw an early pension from a date earlier that 58 years of age but not earlier than 50 years of age.  In such cases, the amount of pension shall be reduced at the rate of (four percent) for every year at the age falls short of 58 years.

 

11.     Thus, it is relevant to make a mention of the fact that the Complainant had retired on 31.12.2004 at the age of 55 years and as on 16.11.1995, the age of the Complainant was 47 years.  As per proviso of Para 12(3) of EPS 1995, as on 16.11.1995, if the age of the Pensioner at the time of retirement is below 48 years, his entitled Monthly Pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12(3) of EPS 1995.   In the present case on hand, the Complainant got separated from the services of his Employer at the age of 47 years, hence, his entitled Monthly Pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12 (3) of EPS 1995. Fact remains that the Complainant has 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% 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. Thus, the contention of the Appellant that the Respondent herein had opted for Reduced Pension and his entitled Monthly Pension was calculated as per Para 12(3) & 12(7) of EPS 1995 has to be accepted. 

12.     Further, in this Appeal, Appellant has filed the Synopsis of his arguments with calculation work sheet of Pension of the Complainant, wherein, it is observed that the Appellant had revised the entitled Monthly Pension by giving weightage of two years as per Para 12 (3) and 12(7) of EPS 1995 and arrears of the entitled Monthly Pension amount of Rs.22,580/- from 15.01.2005 to 30.06.2017 has been credited to the account of the Complainant on 01.08.2017 belatedly that too after the Complainant had raised a Complaint before the District Commission.   The act of Appellant in not fixing the entitled Monthly Pension of the Respondent in time, amounts to deficiency in service.  In the circumstances, impugned order requires to be set aside.  In the result, we pass the following

O R D E R

          Appeal is allowed.  Consequently, the impugned Order dated 01.03.2021 passed in Complaint No.1011/2016 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru is hereby set aside with a direction to the Appellant/OP to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant for belated payment of arrears on revised pension within 3 months from the date of the 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