Karnataka

StateCommission

A/515/2017

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.Dass S/o late Thimmaiah, - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.K

02 Aug 2023

ORDER

   Date of Filing :23.02.2017

                                                               Date of Disposal :02.08.2023

 

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

 

DATED:02.08.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL No.515/2017

 

 

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Regional Office: Peenya

Bengaluru-560 022                                                            Appellant

(By Mrs M R Shalamala, Advocate)   

 

 

                                         -Versus-

 

1. Sri T Dass

    S/o Late Thimmaiah

    7-A-1, A Type Quarters

    HMT Colony,

    Devarayapatana Post

    Tumakuru

    (By Mr T Ramaiah, Advocate)

         

 2. The General Manager

     HMT Watch Factory-4

     Devarayapatna

     Tumakuru                                                                    Respondents

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP1, aggrieved by the Order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Complaint Nos.60/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkuru (for short, the District Forum).

 

2.       Heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels on record.

3.       The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, deemed it fit to allow the Complaint partly and directed the OP1 to re-calculate the Pension of the Complainant as per Para 12(3) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995, by giving weightage of two years and also extend the minimum assured benefit both in respect of past and present service with effect from the date of retirement along with arrears of pension with interest @ 12% p.a, to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- and to pay Annual Relief as per Para 32 of EPS 1995.   The District Forum Dismissed the Complaint as against OP2.

 

4.       Being aggrieved by this Order, OP1 - The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is in Appeal contending that as per the clarification received from the Head Office, the Appellant has granted weightage of two years with arrears of pension to the Complainant.  Further contended that the pre-amended Para and amended Para 12 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 with effect from 15.06.2007, results in no change as regards qualification of pension of the entitled pensioners is concerned, barring a change with regard to determination of eligibility of pension with reference to age of pensioner has been substituted with the periodicity of pension claim/date of commencement of pension.  It is explicit from the amended Para 12 of EPS 1995, that the service rendered by the Pensioner under both the pensions schemes, i.e., erstwhile Family Pension Scheme 1971 as well as under Employees Pension Scheme 1995 has been duly honoured and accordingly, admission pension is being granted to the entitled pensioners.  Further Appellant contended that the District Forum erroneously came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service, when the issue is basically the interpretation of the EPS 1995. Thus seeks to set aside the Impugned Order by allowing the Appeal.

 

 

5.       Perused the Impugned Order and Grounds of Appeal.  No doubt, the Appellant has revised the entitled Monthly Pension of the complainant by giving weightage of two years.  The main dispute between the parties is only with regard to fixation of the entitled monthly pension and arrival of calculation as per Para 12 (3) (a) (b).  

 

6.       The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent is that the minimum assured benefit for the past service applicable to the Complainant/Respondent herein is Rs.1,207/- + Rs 450/- = Rs 1,657, whereas, the Appellant in the Memorandum of Appeal at Paragraph No.6 therein has stated that the minimum assured benefit for the past service applicable to the Complainant/Respondent herein is Rs.1,207/- + Rs.314/- = 1,521/-. Thus there is a difference in arrival of fixation of pension by the parties.

 

In this regard, it is relevant to excerpt Para 12(3) (a) and (b) of EPS 1995, which reads as under:

 

12(3) – In the case of an employee (who was a member of the ceased family pension scheme, 1971) who has not attained the age of 48 years on the 16.11.1995; superannuation/retirement /short service pension shall be equal to the aggregate of

1. Pension as determined under Sub-Paragraph (2) for the period of pensionable service rendered from the 16^th November, 1995 or Rs.635/- per month whichever is more;
2. Past service pension benefit shall be as given below: The past service benefits payable on completion of 58 years of age on 16.11.1995

	Years of past service	Salary upto Rs. 2,500 per month	Salary more than Rs. 2,500 per month
	Upto 11 years
	More than 11 years but up to 15 years
	More than 15 years but less than 20 years
	Beyond 20 years

 

Subject to a minimum of Rs.800/- per month, provided the past service is 24 years.  If the aggregate service of the member is less than 24 years, the pension and the benefits computed as above shall be reduced proportionately subject to a minimum of Rs.450/- per month.

7.       It is observed from the Impugned Order that the Complainant/Respondent herein was employee of HMT Watch Factory, Tumkur and during his service, he joined the Employee Provident Fund Scheme, he contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, he continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995.  He joined the service on 07.01.1980 and retired from the service on 31.03.2001 at the age of 43 years by rending pensionable service of 20 years.  The Complainant’s age as on 15.11.1995 was 46 years 09 months & 10 days which is rounded off to 47 years and 11 years, 2 months & 20 days of service rendered by him is rounded off to 11 years.  Hence, the entitled Monthly Pension and benefits to be computed shall be reduced proportionately subject to a minimum of Rs.450/- per month as stated supra, since service of the Member/Complainant is less than 24 years.   In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent/Complainant  found to be acceptable.

 

8.       Thus, in view of the above observations, the Impugned Order is just and proper which does not call for any interference.  However, in so far as awarding of interest @ 12% p.a is concerned, which in our considered opinion is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeal Nos.515/2017 is allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned Order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Complaint Nos.60/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkuru is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned.  All the other directions given to OP in the impugned order remain undisturbed.

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

                                                         

                                                                             President

*s