| First Appeal No. A/1688/2013 | | ( Date of Filing : 21 Nov 2013 ) | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/04/2012 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/23/2012 of District Dharwad) |
| | | | 1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner | | Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, New Block, Behind Income Tax Office, Navanagar, Hubli - 580 025 |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Somalingappa S/o. Bhimappa Huded | | R/o. Asundi Tq., Savadatti, Dist. Belgaum | | 2. Basavaraj S/o. Shankareppa Sunnal | | R/o. Nr. Police Station, Katkol Tq., Ramdurg, Dist Belgaum | | 3. Sri. Veerappa S/o. Veerabhadrappa Kurabet | | R/o. Katkol Tq., Ramdurga,Dist Belgaum | | 4. Sri. Bharamagouda S/o. Devendregouda Hiregoudar | | R/o. Vijayanagar Extension, Hubli, Dist Dharwad | | 5. Prakash S/o. Balu Upadhya | | R/o. H. No.LIG 368, 12th Cross Road, Navanagar, Tq: Hubli, Dist Dharwad | | 6. Basavanneppa S/o. Mallappa Rangappanavar | | R/o. PCARD Bank, APMC Yard, Dist Gadag | | 7. Tirakappa S/o. Yallappa Hadapad | | R/o. 3rd Main, 5th Cross, Siddalinganagar, Gadag, Dist Gadag | | 8. Narayan S/o. Gajanan Upadhaya | | R/o. No.21, Gurukrupa, 3rd Main, Mahantnagar, Dharwad | | 9. Rudrappa S/o. Basavanneppa Huchangoudar | | R/o. Dastikoppa, Tq: Bailhongal, Dist Belgaum |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1688/2013 The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, New Block-10, Behind Income Tax Office, Navanagar, Hubli 580 025. (By Smt. Nandita Haldipur) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s 1. | Sri Somalingappa, S/o Bhimappa Huded, Age : 53 years, R/o Asundi, Tq. Savadatti, Dist. Belgaum. | ..…Respondent/s | 2. | Sri Basavaraj, S/o Shankareppa Sunnal, Age : 53 years, R/o Near Police Station, Katkol, Tq. Ramdurg, Dist : Belgaum. | | 3. | Sri Veerappa, S/o Veerabhadrappa Kurabet, Age : 64 years, R/o Katkol, Tq.Ramdurga, Dist . Belgaum. | | 4. | Sri Bharamagouda, S/o Devendregouda Hiregoudar, Age : 64 years, R/o Vijayanagar Extn., Hubli, Dist : Dharwad. | | 5. | Sri Prakash, S/o Balu Upadhya, Age : 64 years, R/o H.No. LIG 368, 12th Cross Road, Navanagar, Tq. Hubli, Dist : Dharwad. | | 6. | Sri Basavanneppa, S/o Mallappa Rangappanavar, Age : 53 years, R/o PCARD Bank, APMC Yard, Dist : Gadag. | | 7. | Sri Tirakappa, S/o Yallappa Hadapad, Age : 66 years, R/o 3rd Main, 5th Cross, Siddalinganagar, Gadag, Dist : Gadag. | | 8. | Sri Narayan, S/o Gajanan Upadhaya, Age : 60 years, R/o No.21, Gurukrupa, 3rd Main, Mahantnagar, Dharwad. | | 9. | Sri Rudrappa, S/o Basavanneppa Huchangoudar, Age : 62 years, R/o Dastikoppa, Tq. Bailhongal, Dist : Belgaum. (By Sri K.G. Shanthappa for R-1 to 9) | |
ORDER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER 1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Common Order dt.30.04.2012 passed in CC.No.23/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharwad. 2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder; It is the case of the complainants that they are the members of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952. After retirement, all the complainants have submitted Form-10D for fixation of their pension. The respondent has not taken into account of entire period of service rendered by all the complainants. Their past service is not considered. As per Para-6.2.14 of EPS 1995 the ‘eligibility for pensions is determined with reference to eligible service’. Further the complainants alleged that in the month of August 2011, it came to the knowledge of the complainants through one of their colleague that there are errors in calculation of pension fixed to them. It is also came to their knowledge that pension paid to them by the respondent are lesser one. Immediately after the knowledge, the complainants issued legal notice to the respondent through their counsel on 26.09.2011 requested to refix the pension of all the complainants by giving weightage of two years. The notice is served upon the respondent, but, he has not taken into consideration. Hence, the complainants have filed the present complaint. 3. The Opposite Party appeared and filed version and contended that the complainants were enrolled as members of Employees Pension Scheme 1971 w.e.f. 01.03.1995 and they have retired from service. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to the weightage of two years, since they are not completed 20 years of pensionable service after 16.11.1995. Further, the respondent contended that if any accumulation is received from the complainants, it will be credited to Employees Pension Fund Account No.1, as such the family pension membership is extended to the complainants from 01.03.1995 and not from the date of appointment. Hence, in view of these reasons there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and prayed to dismiss the complaint. 4. After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party is in appeal. Heard the arguments of counsel for appellant. Inspite of sufficient opportunity provided to the respondents, they have not argued the matter. 5. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is an admitted fact that the respondents were the members of Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 and opted for the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. It is also an admitted fact that the respondents have Joint Family Pension Scheme, 1971 on 01.03.1995. The allegation of the respondents is that they came to the knowledge in the month of August 2011 that there is an error in calculation of pension fixed to him is lesser, hence, he issued a legal notice through counsel to refix the pension by giving weightage to the appellant, but, inspite of service of notice, the appellant has not taken it into consideration. 6. Perused the appeal memo. The appellant contended that the respondents were enrolled as members of Employees Pension Scheme 1971 with effect from 01.03.1995. The respondents are not entitled for two years weightage as per 10-2 of the EPF Scheme 1995 because they were not completed 20 years of pensionable service after 16.11.1995 and also not retired after attaining the age of 58 years. The pensionable service is the service rendered by the employee from the date as which the nexus came into effect. In the present case, the respondents joined the service on 01.04.1985 and retired from the service on 31.03.2010 i.e. they have completed only 15 years of pensionable service and as per Para-10(2) of EPF Scheme 1995, the respondents are not entitled for two years weightage. Moreover, the respondents are continuously absent from 2014 and not argued the matter. It seems that the respondents are not interested in continuing the matter. 7. Moreover, on perusal of the order sheet of this Commission, as per office note there is 528 days delay in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed an IA along with affidavit to condone the delay and narrated the reasons in para.3 of the affidavit. We have satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit, hence, delay is condoned on payment of costs of Rs.500/- payable to Consumer Welfare Fund. Considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that without considering the provision of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1995, the District Commission has passed an order which is not just and proper. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following; ORDER The appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. The amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant. Forward free copies to both parties. Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* | |
