Complaints filed on: 18-06-2018,22/04/2019 & 15/02/2021
Disposed on: 19-07-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
CC.Nos.50/2018, 100/2019, & 19/2021
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER
C.C.No.50/2018
Jayarama Rao B.S. S/o Late Shamanna,
A/a 74 years, 5th Cross,
Behind Kasthuruba Hospital,
S.S.Puram, Tumkur Town,
Tumkur District.
……….Complainant
C.C.No.100/2019
A.S.Khan S/o Late Waheed Khan,
A/a 72 years, Door No..32,
V Cross, P.H.Colony,
Tumakuru Town,
Tumakuru District.
……….Complainant
C.C.No.19/2021
K. Kannappa, Dead by Lrs
Shakunthalamma
W/o late K.Kannappa
A/a 66 years, R/o 4th Cross,
Vinobhanagar, Tumakuru City
1(a) Basavaraju S/o Late K.Kannappa
1(b) Muragan S/o Kannappa
……….Complainant
(By Sri.T.Ramaiah., Advocate)
V/s
1. The Assistant Commissioner, P.F.
Sub Regional Office, Peenya,
Bangalore-560 058.
2. The Divisional Controller
Division Office,
KSRTC, Bus Stand,
Tumakuru Town, Tumkur District.
……….OPs are same in all the 03 cases
(OP 1 By Sri.T.K.Jayaram., Advocate)
(OP2 By Sri.C.G.Lakshmisha., Advocate)
:COMMON O R D E R:
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT
All these complaints have been filed by the respective complainants U/s 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the OPs and prayed to direct the OP No.1 to release the more amounts deducted towards commutation and to pay arrears with interest @ 12% p.a. from the month of wrong deducted as per Para 17(A) of EPS 1995 and further prays to direct the OPs to give pension without deduction of commutation amount as per EPS 1995 along with cost of Rs.3,000/- together with cost and compensation.
2. In the above cases though the complainants / pensioners are different, but the Ops are same in both the cases (hereinafter called as, OP -1 and OP -2) for brevity and convenience. The relief claimed by complainants / pensioners in both cases against the OP -1 is similar, as such to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, this common order.
3. The brief facts of complaint can be stated as under:
The complainant in complaint No.50/2018 was an Employee of OP No.2 and joined the service on 03.08.1973 and retired on 29.09.1991. The complainant in complaint No.100/2019 was an Employee of OP No.2 and joined the service on 04.07.1968 and retired on 31.06.2000. The complainant in complaint No.19/2021 was an Employee of OP No.2 and joined the service on 23.04.1972 and retired on 25.05.2000. It is further case of the complainants that OP No.1 introduced pension scheme namely family pension scheme 1971 w.e.f 01.06.1971 and the complainants joined the said family pension scheme and the same was accepted by the OP No.1 by allotting family pension account number and thereafter subscription were deducted from their salary and remitted to their pension account allotted by OP No.1.
3(a) The complainants further contended that the OP No.1 introduced new scheme known as Employees Pension Scheme 1995 w.e.f. 16.11.1995 and asked the complainants to submit their willingness to transfer the amount accumulated in the old scheme to new scheme, accordingly the complainants gave their willingness and thereafter the OP No.1 continued the complainants in the new scheme. It is further case of the complainants that after their retirement from the service, the OP No.2 sent all the records and other details to the OP No.1 and their monthly pension was fixed at Rs.572/-, Rs.403/- and Rs.435/- in C.C.No.50/2018, 100/2019 and C.C.No.19/2021 respectively.
3(b). The complainants further submitted that the OP No.1 introduced option for the commutation to the pensioners, wherein a member eligible to pension may in lieu of pension normally admissible under Paragraph 12 option on completion of three years from the commencement of this scheme to commute up-to a maximum of one third of his pension so as to receives 100 times the monthly pension so commuted as commuted value of pension and balance pension will be paid on monthly basis as per option exercised under Paragraph.13. It is further submitted that the complainants obtained commutation with regard to their pension and the OP No.1 deducted more amounts in the pension after completion of 100 times as per EPS 1995. Hence, the complainants filed these complaints with a request to direct the OPs as above.
4. After service of notice, the OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsels and filed separate versions.
4(a) The OP No.1 in his version has contended that the complaint is not at all maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed with costs. The OP further contended that the complainants are pensioners under Employees’ Pension Scheme 1955 and they have opted for commutation and one third of the original pension i.e. Rs.191/-, Rs.248/- and Rs.242/- respectively was commuted and commuted value of the pension amount to Rs.19,100/-, Rs.24,800/ and Rs.24,200/- was paid to the complainants respectively.
4(b) The OP No.1 further contended that there is no provision in the Employees’ provident Fund Scheme 1995 to restore the original pension after completion of 100 months and contended tin this regard the order of Hon’ble National Commission and judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Revision Petition NO.4545/2013 dt:18.11.2013 and WP NO.23539-23554/2019 (L-RES). It is further contended that Government of India vide GSR No.132 (E) dated:20.02.2020 has amended the EPS scheme 2020 by inserting Para 12-B restoration to normal pension in cases of grant of commutation and once the system software is in place the restoration of commutation would be granted to the complainant if he is eligible. Hence, the complaints filed by the complainants are liable to be dismissed.
5. The OP No.2 in its version contended that the averments made in the complaints are all not within their knowledge and he is not necessary party to the proceedings. It is further contended that the OP No.2 deducted the monthly subscription of the complainant and the same was remitted to the office of the OP No.1 and hence nothing will be due from the OP No.2 with respect of pension of the complainant and hence the OP No.1 is only liable and answerable to the complainant. On these among other grounds, the OP No.2 prays to dismiss the complaint.
6. The complainants and OPs have filed their affidavit evidence with copies of bank statements.
7. We have heard the arguments from both parties.
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2) Whether complainant has entitled for reliefs sought for?
8. Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
9. It is not in dispute that the complainants are pensioners under the E.P.S. 1995 and the scheme provided an option for commutation of pension to the eligible members. The members under the scheme in lieu of full pension admissible U/s 12 may opt on completion of 3 years from the commencement of the scheme to commute the pension up-to maximum of 1/3 of the pension and received the balance on monthly basis. As per the scheme, the complainants have opted for commutation and 1/3 of the original pension Rs.191, rS.248/- and Rs.242/- respectively was commuted and commuted value of the pension amount of Rs.19,100/-, Rs.24,800/- & Rs.24,200/- was paid to the complainants respectively.
10. Now the main contention of the complainants is that they are entitled to get full pension after 100 months. As per the memo of calculation of the complainant, the commutation period expired w.e.f. 29.02.2008 in C.C.50/2018, 30.08.2010 in C.C.No.100/2019 and 01.08.2008 in C.C.No.19/2021. Therefore, the complainants are eligible to get full pension/restoration of pension from 01.03.2008 in C.C.50/2018, 01.09.2010 in C.C.No.100/2019 and 01.09.2008 in C.C.No.19/2021, as the complainants have opted commutation only for 100 months, but the complainants calculated pension as earlier. The deduction after the expiry of opted period is illegal.
11. In the course of arguments, the Assistant P.F. Commissioner (Legal), Peenya, Bangalore of the OP No.1 submitted that, the maximum of commuted value is 100 times of 1/3rd of the monthly pension and has drawn our attention towards para 12(A) of the E.P.S. 1995 and it reads as:-
"A member eligible to pension may, in lieu of normally admissible under paragraph 12, opt on completion of three years from the commencement of this scheme, to commute up-to maximum of one-third of his pension so as to receive hundred times the monthly pension so commuted as commuted value of pension. Balance pension will be paid on monthly basis".
This Para has already been deleted vide Notification No.GSR 688(E) dated: 25th September 2008 and hence the option for commutation of pension was withdrawn with effect from 25.09.2008.
12. Further, the Assistant Commissioner (Legal) OP No.1 submitted that, in the above cited para 12(A) of the E.P.S. 1995, the commutation of pension does not relate any period i.e. months/years and commutation was up-to a maximum of 1/3 of the pension of complainant so as to receive 100 times the monthly pension. The above provision nowhere speaks about the restoration of the members pension. Infact, the complainants have misread the provision of commuting the pension. Thus, without there being any provision in the Rules for restoration of pension, the OP cannot be termed as deficient in service.
13. So, it is clear from 12(A) of the E.P.S. 1995 that, the maximum of the commuted value is 100 times of the 1/3 of the monthly pension so commuted and there is no provision for restoration of pension after 100 months.
14. Further, OP No.1 submitted that the Central Government has introduced restoration of pension vide GSR 132(E) under Para 12B of the EPS 1995 on 20.02.2020 and it reads as:
"Restoration to normal pension in cases of grant of commutation - The normal pension in respect of those members who avail the benefit of commutation of pension under the erstwhile paragraph 12A of the scheme, on or before the 25th day of September, 2008, shall be restored after completion of fifteen years from the date of such commutation. The notification clearly says that "On completion of fifteen years from the date of commutation and nowhere it is mentioned that after 10 months".
15. The above notification clearly says that eligible for restoration of pension is "on completion of 15 years from the date of commutation" and nowhere it is mentioned that after 100 months. Once the system software is in place, the restoration of commutation would be granted to the complainants if they are eligible.
16. As per notification the complainant in C.C.No.50/2018 is eligible for restoration to normal pension after 30.10.2014, in CC.No.100/2019 is eligible for restoration to normal pension after 01.07.2015 and in C.C.No.19/2021 is eligible for restoration to normal pension after 15.04.2016.
17. In C.C.50/2018 OP credited and restore the original pension of Rs.957/- in May-2020 w.e.f 30/10/2014 as per EPFO Head office circular No. Pension 1/3(10) 19/commutation/11829 dated:26/02/2020 and arrears of Rs.14,131/- for the period from 30/10/2014 to 30/04/2020 was credited in S.B.A/c of pensioner on 30.05.2020.
18. In C.C.No.100/2019 Pension of the complainant is Rs.1000/- with effect from 01.07.2015, 15 years from the date of commencement of pension i.e. 01/07/2000 by restoring the commutation amount of Rs.248/-. The arrears of Rs.15,376/- towards arrears from 01/07/2015 to 31/08/2020 was released to the complainant on 30/09/2020 and credited to his S.B. A/c of Canara Bank.
19. In C.C.No.19/2021, the monthly pension of Rs.1000/- has been restored with effect from 15/04/2016 i.e. immediately after completion of 15 years . For the period 15/04/2006 to 02/02/2019, arrears of Rs.11,155/- has been credited to the bank A/c of the complainant in August/September only.
20. In all these complaints, the complainants not fairly reported before the commission regarding restoration of pension and receiving the pension arrears. In C.C.No.19/2021 after restoration of pension and receiving the pension arrears, the complainant has filed this complaint, hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
21. We do not find any deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and OP No.2. Therefore, the complaints are liable to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, we pass the following:-
:O R D E R:
The complaints Nos.50/2018, 100/2019 are dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-.
The complaint No.19/2021 is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
The complainants are directed to deposit the cost to the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order.
The original of this order shall be kept in Complaint No.50/2018 and a copy thereof shall be kept in C.C.No.105/2019.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainants and opposite parties at free of cost.
(
