Karnataka

StateCommission

A/783/2022

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Bannappa S/o Basappa Hosamani, Aged about 70 years - Opp.Party(s)

Shwetha Anand

30 Jun 2023

ORDER

    Date of Filing :12.03.2022

Date of Disposal :30.06.2023

 

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

 

DATED:30.06.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.780/2022 to 783/2022

 

 

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension)
Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax office,

Navanagar,

Hubballi – 580025
(By Mrs Shwetha Anand,Advocate)                                       Appellant

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

           -Versus-

1.Appeal No.780/2022

Mr Vasant

S/o Mr Siddoji Rao Jadhav,

Aged about 72 years,
R/at 67/2,

Maratha Colony,

1^st Cross Jadhav Compound,

Dharwad – 580008.                                                         Respondent

 

2. Appeal No.781/2022

Mr Ishwar

S/o Mr Bhimappa Pujar,

Aged about 63 Years,
R/at Goudar Oni,

Navalur Taluk,

Dharwad District – 580001.                                           Respondent 

 

3. Appeal No.782/2022

Mr Basappa

S/o Mr Gadigeppa Sutagatti,

Aged about 68 years.
R/at 84, Taj Nagar Last Stop,

Unakal, Hubballi – 580031,

Dharwad District.                                                           Respondent

 

4. Appeal No.783/2022

Mr Bannappa

S/o Mr Basappa Hosamani,

Aged about 70 years,
R/at Kalidas Nagar,

Mouneshwar Plot,

3^rd Cross, Kundagol– 581113,

Dharwad District.                                                           Respondent 

 

        :COMMON ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       These Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.108/2019, 119/2019, 120/2019 and 132/2019 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.     This Commission heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels on record.

03.     The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, deemed it fit to allow the Complaints in part and directed the OP to revise the monthly pension of all the Complainants, as claimed in their respective complaints from the date of their respective retirement and pay the arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 10% p.a as and when the arrears has become due.   Further directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards cost and compensation to each of the Complainants.

04.     Being aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds that, he had revised the pension by granting 2 years of weightage and arrears have been paid in Appeal No.780 and 782/2022 and hence, there is no error in calculation of revision of pension.  Further she contended that after granting weightage of two years, there is no change in pension in Appeal No.781 and 783/2022.   The District Commission ought not to have awarded interest at the rate of 10% p.a on the difference of pension amount on revision.   It is the public exchequer/money which is put at loss.   Therefore, Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by Dismissing the Complaints.

05.     During the course of arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Complainants/Respondents herein, in all these cases submitted that all the Respondents are eligible for weightage of two years, even though they have not been superannuated, they had opted for Reduced Pension, as there is a provision under Para 12 (7) to reduce the Pension @ 3%every year to the extent of the age that falls short of 58 years.  Further, she submitted that the Complainants in each of the case are eligible for past service benefit, as per the un-amended Para Nos 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) (a & b) and while calculating the age, Appellant has to round off the years of service to the next higher slab of year,  if it is more than 6 months. 

The Learned Counsel for the Respondent, in support of her submission, referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 28.09.1984 in the case of Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1984 Law Suit (SC) 270 and submitted that in the said decision, it was clearly stated that, as on the date of retirement of the Pensioner, the prevailing Pension Rules will be applicable and that may be taken into consideration in all these cases.

06.     Perused the Impugned Order and grounds of Appeal and it is observed that the Complainants havejoined the Employee Provident Fund Scheme,they contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, they continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. After they retired from their services, they came to know that there are errors in calculation of their entitled monthly pension and gave representations to the OP to rectify the same, but, OP did not rectify the same and hence, they filed their respective Complaints before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.   On the contrary, OP denied the error in fixation and payment of monthly pension to the respective Complainants.

07.     Let us examine the details of service particulars of each of the Complainant as per records 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
780/ 2022	108/2019	05.04.1950	1971	01.04.2004 Opted for pension from 20.12.2004	24	08	55
781/ 2022	119/2019	01.07.1959	1979	01.04.2004 Opted for pension from 01.07.2009	16	04	51
782/ 2022	120/2019	28.06.1954	1978	01.04.2004 Opted for pension from 01.03.2005	17	08	51
783/ 2022	132/2019	01.07.1952	1979	30.08.2002 Opted for pension from 10.05.2004	16	07	52

 

Thus, it is observed from the contents of the above table, that the Complainants in Appeal Nos.780 to 783/2022 retired from their service before attaining the age of Superannuation.  However, they rendered pensionable service of more than 20 years and complied with the condition as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995, as it stood before 24.07.2009 hence, they are eligible for weightage of two years.

08.     With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension for all these Complainants, it is seen that all the Complainants have retired earlier to 15.06.2007 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. 

09.     Thus taking into consideration the fact that, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 28.09.1984 in the case of Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1984 Law Suit (SC) 270, wherein, it was held that “Retrospective amendment of the Rule curtailing amount of pension so payable : Pension: Hyderabad General Clauses Act 1308 F Section 2(22) : States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1945) Section 115 (7) proviso: Labour and services: Constitution of India Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1) (as stood prior to their omission on June 20, 1979) should be payable under the Rules as in force at the time of retirement: Although, previous sanction of Central Government under Section 115 of States Re-organisation Act for retrospective amendment of Rule 299(1) (b) of Hyderabad Civil  Service Rules not required where the person affected retiring prior to the appointed day stipulated under the Act”. 

Also, the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur Vs Vasanth Madhav Kerur and others in Revision Petition No.765/2013, wherein, it was held that “the aggregated past service and actual service (period of service form 16.11.1995 onwards) has to be considered for the purpose of calculation of weightage of two years”.

 

10.     Thus with the above observation, this Commission is of the considered view that all the Complainants are entitled for revision of their entitled Monthly Pension.  Further, the fact remains that, when the Complainants 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% or 4% for every year of short fall in their service before attaining the age of Superannuation, 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.  In such view of the matter, the act of OP in not revising pension of the Complainants amounts to deficiency in service.

11.     Under the above circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the Impugned Order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and doesn’t call for any interference.  However, in our view, 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, Appeal Nos.780/2022 to 783/2022 are allowed in part.  Consequently, Impugned Order dated 23.12.2021 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.108/2019, 119/2019, 120/2019 and 132/2019 respectively 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 by the District Forum shall remain un-disturbed and the Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this Order.

 

12.     The Statutory Deposit in all these Appeals is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

13.     Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.780/2022 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

 

 

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

 

 

 

                                                         

                                                                             President

*s