KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

FIRST APPEAL 416/2011

JUDGMENT DATED: 21 .5..2012

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                                : MEMBER

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,     : APPELLANTS

     Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

     8^th and 9^th floor, Mayyor Bhavan,

     Cannaught Circle, New Delhi – 1.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,

    Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

     Sub Regional Office, Fort Road, Kannur.

           (By Adv.K.V.Karmachandran)

1.P.M.John,                                                 :RESPONDENTS

   Palakkuzhiyil House,

   P.O.Keezhpally.

2. M.G.Thankamma,

    Malamoottil House,

    Markigode, P.O.Keezhpally.

3.  V.Mathew,

     Koliyakottu House, P.O.Keezhpally.

4. K.P.Pathumma,

    Kottayiparambil House,

     Chathiroor, P.O.Keezhpally.

5. K.Pathumma,

    Vengakkal House, Kozhiyode,

    P.O.Keezhpally.

6. K.J.Thomas,

    Kunnathettu House, Karikkettakkari,

    P.O.Keemanthode.

7. Thomas Mathew,

     Pallithazhath House, Chathirur,

     P.O.Keezhpally.

8.  P.Chandu,

     Chennapoyil House,

     Vietnam Tribal Colony,

      P.O.Keezhpally.

9.  K.Thankappan,

     Kanicharvilayil House,

     P.O.Keezhpally.

(By Adv.C.S.Rajmohan  - Amicus curiae)

10. The Secretary,  Board of Trustees,

      Employees Provident Fund,

     State Farms Corporation of India Ltd.,

     14-15 Farms Bhavan, Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.

11. The Director,

      Central State Farm, Aralam.P.O.,

      Aaralam Farm – 670673.

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

            The appellants were the opposite parties in CC.130/03 of CDRF, Kannur.  The complainants were workers under the 2^nd opposite party Central State Farm, Aralam.  Their services were terminated as per VSS during 2001.  They were subscribers of Employees Provident Fund.  The 1^st opposite party is administering the EPF accounts of the complainants and is liable to pay EPF benefits to the subscribers.    The benefits granted to the complainants after retirement were allegedly very low.

          2. The CDRF, Kannur allowed the complaint in part with respect to complainants 2,4,5 and 9.  The other complainants were not granted any relief.  Apart from enhancing pension no other relief was granted.  The said order is challenged by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties allowed  pension of Rs.503/- to the 2^nd complainant.  Admittedly she was born on 22.6.41 and her date of retirement was on 21.6.99  on attaining 58 years of age. She had past service of 16 years and pensionable service of 2 years. Together she had 18 years of service eligible for pension. The total salary calculated for the purpose of pension is also not disputed.  The CDRF, Kannur held that the 2^nd complainant was entitled to Rs.500/- as monthly pension.  As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant the error happened in not taking into account the return of capital amount to the complainant and the consequent  reduction in pension.   On this aspect, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not contradicted.  Hence it is only to be held there is no error in the pension awarded to the 2^nd complainant by the appellant.

          3. Regarding complainant number 4 she admittedly retired on 31.1.01  on attaining 58 years of age.  She had past service of 14 years and eligible service of 4 years.  The average  salary calculated was Rs.2094/-.  The total pensionable salary was calculated as Rs.598.46/-.  But the CDRF, Kannur calculated the actual pension payable by applying the formula
600 – (600 x 15)/100 =510.  This calculation appears to be totally erroneous and the pension proportionate to her  pensionable service would come to Rs.475/- already given to her.  Thus the appellant has correctly calculated the pension due to complainant number 4.

          4. Regarding complainant number 5 she admittedly retired from service on 15.11.2000 on attaining 58 years of age. She had past service 16 years and pensionable service of 5 years.  The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that in this case there is no dispute that she was born on 15.11.42.  So on attaining 58 years of age she retired on 14.11.2000.  So she falls  in the category mentioned in Rule 12(5) not 12(4) of EPFS 1995 as wrongly assumed by the CDRF, Kannur.  The error happened only because of that.  If the error is rectified pension of Rs.519/- awarded by the appellants is correct.

          5. Regarding complainant No.9 his date of retirement was on 29.9.00. He had past service of 5 years and pensionable service of 5 years.  So proportionate pension is to be calculated by applying the factor 10/24.  But the CDRF, Kannur committed similar mistake pointed out in the case of complainant No.4.  As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants if the pension is divided by applying the correct factor the pension amount would be Rs.205/- only .  But having regard to the relevant provisions the minimum amount of Rs.265/- was granted.

          6. Thus it appears that the CDRF, Kannur erred in allowing the complaints even to the limited extent.  Therefore the appeal is liable to be allowed.

          In the result appeal is allowed. The order of the CDRF, Kannur in CC.130/03 dated 1.3.11 is set aside  and complaint is dismissed. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their respective costs.       

          SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          SMT.A.RADHA                                : MEMBER

ps