Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1851/2018

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Samsuddin - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

26 Apr 2023

ORDER

                                                                   Date of Filing : 13.11.2018

  Date of Disposal : 26.04.2023

 

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

 

DATED : 26.04.2023

 

 

PRESENT

 

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

 

APPEAL Nos.1840/2018 to 1852/2018

 

 

 

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.1840/2018

Mr. Gangadhar
S/o Mr Gulappa Managoli,

Age 68 years,

R/at C/o Arudha Nagar,

Anand Nagar,

Old Hubli, Hubli.
(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                                      Respondent

 

 

2.Appeal No.1841/2018

Mr Channayya
S/o Mr Girimallayya Hiremath,

Age 64 years,

R/at C/o Shivanna,

D.No.136, 1^st Main,

6^th Cross, Metagalli,

B.M.Shree Nagar,

Mysore-570016

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                                     Respondent   

 

 

                                                                            

3.Appeal No.1842/2018

Mr Prahlad
S/o Mr Hanumant Rao Kulkarni,

Age 66 years,

R/at Sai Residency,

Plot No.45, H.No.101,

GF, Near Raghavendra Swamy Math,

Ramakrishnanagar, 2^nd Cross,

Gokul Road, Hubli-580021

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)                                      Respondent

 

4.Appeal No.1843/2018

Mr Subhash
S/o Mr Mallappa Doddamani,

Age 65 years,

R/at Saundatti Oni,

Unkal, Hubli-580031

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)                                    Respondent

 

5.Appeal No.1844/2018

Mr Panduranga Basappa Magal
S/o Mr Basappa Magal,

Age 72 years,

R/at 'Renuka Krupa'

Behind I.B.,

Umashankar Nagar

Ranebennur-581115                                                     Respondent 

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)

 

6.Appeal No.1845/2018

Mr Cholappa
S/o Mr Devalappa Lamani,

Age 64 years,

R/at Govind Badavane Tanda,

Ranebennur Post,

Haveri

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)                                      Respondent 

 

7.Appeal No.1846/2018

Mr Nagaraj
S/o Mr Venkatesh Joshi,

Age 68 years,

R/at No.39, Laxmi Venkateh,

 Rajnagar, Hubli-580032

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)                                      Respondent

 

 

 

8.Appeal No.1847/2018

Mr Ishwar
S/o Mr Giri Rao Tatuskar

Age 67 years,

R/at No.7, Gangadhar Colony,

Opp. P & Microwave station,

Sulla Road, Hubli-580023

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)                                      Respondent 

 

 

9.Appeal No.1848/2018

Mr Shivappa
S/o Mr Sanjeevappa Iyatti,

Age 63 years,

R/at Chalwadi Oni,

Sattur, Dharwad                                                            Respondent 

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)

 

10.Appeal No.1849/2018

Mr Nagaraj .
S/o Mr Raghavendrarao Shidenur,

Age 70 years,

R/at No.87, 'Shriniketan' Green Garden,

Gokul Road, Hubli-580030

 (By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)                                   Respondent 

 

11.Appeal No.1850/2018

Mr Gopal .
S/o Mr Dattatrey Dixit,

Age 67 years,

R/at No.41, 8^th Cross, Rajanagar,

Vishweswaranagar,

Hubli-580032

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)                                      Respondent 

 

12.Appeal No.1851/2018

Mr Samsuddin .
S/o Mr Abdulkhader Huligeri,

Age 62 years,

R/at Maqbool Manzil,

Mangalagatti Plots,

Sadhanakeri, Dharwad

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)                                    Respondent 

 

13.Appeal No.1852/2018

Mr Abdulrasool A.Jalihal
S/o Mr Abdulrazak Jalihal,

Age 68 years,

R/at Near last Bus Stop,

Malapur, Dharwad

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)                                        Respondent 

 

: COMMON ORDER :

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       These Appeals are filed under Section 27A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by JDr/OP aggrieved by the Order dated 28.06.2018 passed in Execution Petition Nos.12/2017, 29/2017, 35/2017, 30/2017, 15/2017, 16/2017, 40/2017 to 46/2017 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short, the District Forum).

 

 

2.       Perused the Impugned Order & Grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels on record.

 

3.       On Perusal of the record, it reveals that the present Appeal is preferred after the District Forum had passed it’s considered detailed Order in Execution Petitions.

 

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter alia contending amongst other grounds regarding accounting of service – “that part of a year shall stand ignored and only fully completed year of service will be reckoned for calculation of eligible years of completed service”.  Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that as per universal law in vogue, part of service in a year if it falls less than 50% shall stand ignored and if it is in excess of 50%, the same will be rounded off to the next higher year.

 

5.       It is relevant to rely on the decision reported in 2017 (2) CPR 795 (NC) in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another Vs Subhash Chandra Banerjee and another, wherein, in Para 12 it was held that –

         

12. Before parting with the case, we are constrained                      to observe that having regard to the object and spirit                 of the 1952 Act, the quantum of amount involved as also the fact that the technical issue sought to be raised                  in the present Petition may arise in a handful  of cases, involving retired employees, the Provident Commissioner would have done well in graciously accepting the order passed by the State Commission, instead of driving the Complainant in litigation up to  this Forum. We dare say that, in all probability, the cost of litigation incurred in the case would be more than the petty amount of monthly pension, the Complainant might ultimately receive.

 

6.  Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No.6994/2021 decided on 01.12.2021, in Para 32 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.

 

7.    Thus, the District Forum after considering the submission of the Learned Counsel for the DHr/Complainant and also records in Execution Petition, had applied its mind and directed the OP to round off the age of retirement to the nearest year for considering reduced pension as per Para 12 (7) of EPS 1995 in case of early pension and the same has to be accepted in letter & spirit.  In this context, it would be appropriate to make mention of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2012, SC 2881, in the case of Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs Smt. Khazani and another, decided on 04.09.2012, wherein it was held that once Authority like District Commission takes a view, the Bank should graciously accept it rather going for further litigation.

 

8.       With the foregoing observations, it appears that for the purposes of the calculation of pensionary benefit, the accounting of service which is more than 50% of the particular year which is under consideration has been rounded off as one year, on which, this Commission has no second contra-opinion.  Accordingly, Appeal Nos.1840/2018 to 1852/2018 are hereby stands Dismissed.

 

 

9.       Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.1840/2018 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