Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1926/2017

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajashekar - Opp.Party(s)

Nandhitha Haldipur

15 May 2023

ORDER

                                                                Date of Filing :21.09.2017

Date of Disposal :15.05.2023

 

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

 

DATED:15.05.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.1926/2017 to 1931/2017

 

                                      

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Regional Office,

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax Office,

Navanagar, Hubli – 580025.                                          Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

-Versus-

 

1.Appeal No.1926/2017

 Mr Rajashekar
 S/o Mr YomakeshappaBhavikatti,

 Age 66 years,

 R/at Asheerwad,

 H.No.42/1, 3^rd Main,

 Near Cancer Hospital,

 Navanagar, Hubbali                                                       Respondent

 (By Ms G Geeta Bai, Advocate)

 

2.Appeal No.1927/2017

Mr Adayya
S/o Mr Veerayya Benakanalmath,

Age 63 years,

R/at Shri Shivayogishwar Nilaya,

No.261/35, KCC Bank,

Navanagar,

Hubbali -580025                                                            Respondent

(By Ms G Geeta Bai, Advocate)

                                                                  

3.Appeal No.1928/2017

Mr Baburao
S/o Mr Laxman Rao Pathar,

Age 75 years,

R/at No.3/105,

B.Gayathri Nilaya,

J.P.Nagar, Gokul Road,

Hubli-580030                                                                 Respondent

(By Ms G Geeta Bai, Advocate)

                                     

4.Appeal No.1929/2017

Mr Mallikarjun .
S/o Mr Shivayogappa Walip,

Age 72 years

R/at OG-I-A 21,

Chaintanya Nagar,

Kelegeri Road,

Dharwad-580001                                                            Respondent 

(By Ms G Geeta Bai Advocate)                                                          

 

5.Appeal No.1930/2017

Mr Shantaraj
S/o Mr Basavaraj Mansur,

Age 68 years,

R/at 01/81/09,

Aishwarya place,

Saptapur Last Bus Stop,

Dharward-580001                                                          Respondent 

(By Ms G Geeta Bai Advocate)

 

6.Appeal No.1931/2017

Mr Shankar
S/o Mr Bhimarao Mansur,

Age 76 years,

R/at Madhumati Apartment,

B Block, 3^rd Floor,

M.G.Colony, Tilakawadi,

Belgaum-590006                                                           Respondent 

(By Ms G Geeta Bai Advocate)

 

:COMMON ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

01.     These Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Common Order dated 31.07.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.12/2017, 13/2017, 28/2017, 29/2017, 30/2017 and 38/2017 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (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.

 

02.     Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels on record.

03.     The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint in part and directed the OP to revise the Monthly Pension of all the Complainants, taking into consideration of weightage of two years from the date of their retirement and pay the arrears with interest at the rate of 10% pa as and when the arrears had become due and keep paying the pension at the revised rate, according to the Rules. Further, OP was directed to re-fix the pension of the Complainants, taking into consideration their past service benefit, as per the EPS 1995, keeping in mind the observations made by the District Forum in its Orders and following the Law/Rules as applicable for governing the fixation of the pension and to issue Revised Pension Payment Order to the Complainants with cot of Rs.2,000/- to each of the Complainants.

04.     Being aggrieved by this Order, OP contended that the Appellant has rightly re-fixed the Pension, by granting weightage of two years to be paid to the Respondents, but the District Forum has erroneously come to the conclusion and directed the Appellant to grant two years weightage and to revise the pension of the Complainants, to pay arrears, interest, cost and compensation, which deserves to be set aside by allowing these appeals.

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

Appeal No.	Complaint No.	Date of entry into service	Date of retirement	Past service	Actual service	Age as on retirement
1926/2017	12/2017	1973	10.11.2003 and opted for pension from 17.08.2004	22	08	54
1927/2017	13/2017	1976	08.11.2002 and opted for pension from 16.06.2003	19	07	51
1928/2017	28/2017	1971	31.03.1998	24	02	58
1929/2017	29/2017	1971	01.04.2002	24	06	57
1930/2017	30/2017	1971	15.04.2002	24	06	54
1931/2017	38/2017	1969	14.08.1997and opted for pension from 31.08.1997	23	02	58

 

As per Para 10 (2) of EPS as it stood before 24.07.2009, the PF members are required to fulfil the condition of attaining the age of 58 years or completion of pensionable service of 20 years, as on the date of retirement. Complainants in all these appeals have retired from their service before the amendment of 24.07.2009 and they have complied with either of the condition, as laid down in Para 10 (2) of EPS, as it stood before the amendment of 24.07.2009. Hence, they are eligible for weightage of two years.

06.     With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension of the Complainants, it is seen that the Complainants in all these appeals have retired before the amendment of 15.06.2007 to Para 12 of EPS 1995 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.

Though the Complainants in Appeal No.1926/2017, 1927/2017, 1929/2017 and 1930/2017 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% for every year of short fall in their service, as the age of the Members qualifying for benefits as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995 under the PF scheme, falls short of 58 years.

 

07.     It is not in dispute that the Complainants/Respondents during their service, have joined the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. During the course of the Arguments, the Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that they had granted two years of weightage, revised the Monthly Pension and paid the arrears to the Complainants.

With regard to rounding off the age of Retirement, to the nearest year for considering the Complainants for Reduced Pension, as per Para 12 (7) of EPS 1995, it is relevant to make mention of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No.6994/2021 decided on 01.12.2021, wherein, in Para 32 it was held that-

32. While we accept the settled position of law that the rule applicable in matters of determination of pension                 is that which exists at the time of retirement, we                are unable to find any legal basis in the action of                   the Respondent University of selectively allowing the benefit of Rule 25 (a).  The law, as recognized by this court in Deoki Nandan Prasad and Syed Yousuddin Ahmed (supra) unequivocally stated that the pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement.  However, the law does not allow the employer to apply the rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly situated.

Thus, the District Forum after considering the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Complainants and also documents on Records, applied its mind and directed the OP to round off the age of retirement of the Complainants to the nearest year for considering their eligibility for Reduced Pension, as per Para 12 (7) of EPS 1995 and the same has to be accepted in letter & spirit. In the circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum is just and proper.  However, we are of the considered opinion that awarding of interest @ 10% p.a is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeals are allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned Common Order dated 31.07.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.12/2017, 13/2017, 28/2017, 29/2017, 30/2017 and 38/2017 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned.  The cost and compensation of Rs.2,000/- awarded to each of the Complainants awarded by the District Forum shall also remain un-disturbed and the Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this Order, if not already complied with.

 

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

09.     Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.1926/2017 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

                                                         

                                                                          President

*s