Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1721/2019

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt.Fakkirawwa - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

25 May 2023

ORDER

                                                                 Date of Filing: 19.12.2019

  Date of Disposal : 25.05.2023

 

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

 

DATED:25.05.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.1720/2019 to 1725/2019

 

 

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Regional Office,

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax office,

Navanagar, Hubballi – 580025.                                       Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

-Versus-

 

1. Appeal No.1720/2019

    Mr Yallappa
    S/o Mr Maruteppa Subhanavar,

    Age 67 years,

    R/at Durgad Oni,

    Unkal, Hubballi – 580031.                                         Respondent

    (By Ms Geeta Bai,  Advocate)

 

2.Appeal No.1721/2019

   Smt Fakirawwa
   W/o Late Siddappa Sambaji alias Samboji,

   Age 70 years,

   Achavan Colony,

   Unkal, Hubballi-580031

   (By Ms Geeta Bai, Advocate)                                        Respondent 

                                                                            

3.Appeal No.1722/2019

   Mr Balakrishna,
   S/o Mr Maruthi Hanchate,

   Age 64 years,

   R/at Aralikatti Oni,

   Near Ramadev Temple,

   Hubballi – 560028.

   (By Ms Geeta Bai, Advocate)                                        Respondent 

4. Appeal No.1723/2019

    Mr Vasant
    S/o Mr Dattatreya Sampagaonkar,

    Age 70 years,

    R/at No.132, Manjunath Nagar,

    Gokul Road, Hubballi – 580030.

    (By Ms Geeta Bai, Advocate)                                      Respondent 

 

5.Appeal No.1724/2019

   Mr Siddappa
   S/o Mr Ningappa Koujageri

   Age 67 years,

   R/at Saundatti Oni,

   Near Church, Unkal,

   Hubballi – 580031.

  (By Ms Geeta Bai, Advocate)                                          Respondent

 

6.Appeal No.1725/2019

   Mr Govindsa
   S/o Mr Venkusa Katwe,

   Age 72 year,

   R/at H.No.101/66,

   Siddalingeshwar Colony,

   Vikas Nagar, Hubballi

   (By Ms Geeta Bai, Advocate)                                        Respondent

 

: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 Order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.19 to 22/2019, 17/2019 and 16/2019 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.     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, deemed it fit to allow the Complaints in part and directed the OP to revise the monthly pension of all the Complainants in CC No.17/2019, 19/2019, 21/2019  and 22/2019 as per Para 12 (3) (a) and (b) R/W Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995 and in CC No.16/2019 and 20/2019 as per Para 12 (4) (a) and (b) R/W Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995, after taking into consideration the weightage period which were prevailing as on the date of their retirement and pay the arrears, with interest at the rate of 10% p.a as and when the arrears has become due and go on paying the pension at the revised rate, according to the rules as on the date of their retirement and in case of early pension the deduction should be made as per Para 12 (7) by rounding off the age to nearest year.  OP shall pay the cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the each of the Complainants etc.,                                                                                      

04.     Being aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal interalia contending amongst other grounds that the District Forum has gone beyond its jurisdiction to interpret the scheme which powers it does not have and had directed the Appellant to calculate the pension against the provision of its scheme.  The District Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues involving interpretation of statues/rules and Circulars. Further, the Appellant contended that District Forum failed to note that the minimum pension is only for aggregate of past service & pensionable service and not independently for past service and pensionable service.  Further, District Forum erroneously directed the Appellant for rounding off the age for odd months of the year inspite of the fact that there is no specific provision for rounding off.   Therefore, Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by Dismissing the Complaints.

05.     The Learned Counsel for the Complainant/Respondent herein in all these cases submitted that all the Respondents are eligible for weightage of two years, though 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 next higher 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.     On perusal of the Impugned Order, it reveals that the Complainants have joined 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 mistakes committed in sanction of monthly pension 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 Memo filed by the learned counsel for Respondent 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
1720/ 2019	19/2019	01.06.1951	1978	01.04.2004 and opted for reduced pension from 03.03.2005	17	08	53
1721/ 2019	20/2019	01.04.1941	1975	28.08.1993	20	00	53
1722/ 2019	21/2019	22.04.1954	1975	20.12.1999 and opted for reduced pension from 26.04.2000	20	04	51
1723/ 2019	22/2019	10.02.1948	1971	13.12.1999 and opted for reduced pension from 26.04.2000	24	04	52
1724/ 2019	17/2019	01.06.1951	1980	31.05.2006 and opted for reduced pension from 04.07.2006	15	11	56
1725/ 2019	16/2019	10.02.1946	1971	09.02.2004	24	08	58

 

Thus, it is observed from the contents of the above table, the Complainants in Appeal Nos.1720 to 1724/2019 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.

Whereas, Complainant in Appeal No.1724/2019 retired on attaining the age of superannuation by rendering 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 and hence, he is also 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 of 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, all the Complainants are entitled for revision of their 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% 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, 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.  However, awarding of interest @ 10% p.a is on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal Nos.1720/2019 to 1725/2019 are allowed in part.  Consequently, Impugned Order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.19 to 22/2019, 17/2019 and 16/2019respectively 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.5,000/- 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.1720/2019 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