Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1526/2019

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rudrappa - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

11 May 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :12.11.2019

Date of Disposal :11.05.2023

 

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

 

DATED:11.05.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH: PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.1525/2019 to 1529/2019

 

                                      

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.1525/2019

   Mr Madiwalappa .
   S/o Mr KerappaInganalli,

   Age 71 years,

   R/at Hanuman Temple Road,

   (Inganalli Oni),

   At/Po Sattur, Dharwad                                               Respondent

  (By Ms G Geeta Bai, Advocate)

 

2.Appeal No.1526/2019

    Mr Rudrappa
    S/o Mr Maruteppa Pawar,

    Age 64 years,

    R/at Durgad Oni, Unkal,

    Hubballi

   (By Ms G Geeta BaiAdvocate)                                      Respondent 

                                                                            

3.Appeal No.1527/2019

   Mr Babusab
   S/o Mr Hussainsab Lattemmanavar,

   Age 65 years,

   R/at Chavadi Oni,

   P.O.Sattur, Dharwad

   (By Ms G Geeta Bai Advocate)                                     Respondent 

 

4.Appeal No.1528/2019

  Mr Abdul Rehman .
  S/o Mr Abdul Khadar Kharadi,

  Age 68 years,

  R/at Koulpeth, Kumbar Oni,

  Near Ganapathi Temple,

  P.B.Road, Hubballi                                                      Respondent 

  (By Ms G Geeta Bai Advocate)                                                                  

5.Appeal No.1529/2019

   Mr John Mycal
   S/o Mr Raymond Pinto,

   Age 63 years,

   R/at No.21, Teacher's Colony,

   Bengeri, Hubballi                                                       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 16.09.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.238/2018, 236/2018, 239/2018, 237/2018 and 235/2018 respectively on the file of the 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 Complaints in part and directed OP to revise the Monthly Pension of all the Complainants taking into consideration of their respective dates of their retirement, as per Para 12(3) (a) & (b) R/W Para 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 in CC No.235/2018, 236/2018, 237/2018 and 239/2018 and as per Para 12(4) (a) and (b) of EPS 1995 in CC No.238/2018 and pay arrears with interest @ 10% p.a as and when the arrears had become due and keep paying their entitled pension at the revised  rate, according to the rules as on date of their retirement and in case of early pension, as per Para 12(7) the deduction should be made by rounding off the age to nearest year and to pay cost & compensation of Rs.4,000/- to each of the Complainants etc.,                                                             

04.     Being aggrieved by this order, OP contended that Appellant has rightly re-fixed the Complainants’ Pension by granting weightage of two years to be paid to the Respondents and as there is no change in the pension amount, 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 complainant, to pay arrears, interest, cost and compensation deserves to be set aside the impugned order by allowing these appeals.

05.     Let us examine the details of service particulars of each of the Complainant, as per records made available 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
1525/ 2019	238/ 2018	10.02.1947	1974	01.04.2004 and opted for pension from 10.05.2005	21	08/ After DCP 05	58
1526/ 2019	236/ 2018	01.06.1954	1978	01.04.2004 and opted for pension from 28.12.2004	17	05	51
1527/ 2019	239/ 2018	01.07.1953	1981	01.04.2004 and opted for pension from 05.11.2004	14	08/ After DCP 05	52
1528/ 2019	237/ 2018	01.06.1950	1976	31.05.2005 and opted for pension from 15.06.2005	19	10	56
1529/ 2019	235/ 2018	30.01.1955	1975	18.12.1999 and opted for pension from 28.02.2005	20	04	51

 

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 and completion of pensionable service of 20 years, as on the respective dates of retirement. Complainants in all these appeals have retired from their service before the amendment to 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 to 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 it stood before 15.06.2007.

In as much as the Complainants in Appeal No.1526/2019 to 1529/2019 have not been superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995 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.

 

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 arguments, the Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that, they had granted two years of weightage, revised the Monthly Pension and in as much as even after grant of weightage, there is no change in the pension. 

08.     With regard to rounding off the age of retirement to the nearest year, for considering its Members to 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.

09.     Thus, the District Forum after considering the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Complainants and also documents on record, applied its mind and directed the OP to round off the age of retirement to the nearest year for considering its members 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 16.09.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.238/2018, 236/2018, 239/2018, 237/2018 and 235/2018 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.4,000/- 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.

 

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

11.     Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.1525/2019 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

                                                         

 

                                                                       President

*s