Complaints filed on: 19-03-2019
Disposed on: 29-08-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF AUGUST 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
CC.No. 66/2019
Chowdaiah .B S/o Late Ramegowda
A/a 70 years, Janatha Colony,
Badavanahalli & Post,
Dodderi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk,
Tumkur District.
……….Complainant
(By Sri.T.Ramaiah., Advocate)
V/s
The Assistant Commissioner,
PF Organization, Sub-Regional
Office, SIT Main Road, 15th Cross,
Tumkur City.
……….Opposite Party
(By Sri.T.K.Jayaram., Advocate)
:ORDER:
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed against the OP with a prayer to direct the OP to release more deducted of commutation amount and to pay arrears with interest @ 12% PA and from the month of wrong deducted sa per Para 17(A) of EPS 1995 and further prays to give direction to pay pension without deduction of commutation as per EPS 1995. The OP further prays to direct the OP to give past service benefit as per Para 12(3), Rs.800/- as per Para 17(a) with interest @ 12% PA along with cost of Rs.3,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant was working in KSRTC, Tumkur and he was retired from the service on 31.07.2005 and joined the service on 01.06.1971. The OP introduced the pension scheme namely family pension scheme w.e.f 01.06.1971, that the membership to the family scheme was optional and the complainant was opted to join the family pension scheme introduced by the OP No.1/department. The membership to the said scheme was accepted by the OP No.1 and the family pension account number was allotted to him and thereafter the Employer of complainant deducted the monthly subscription of the said scheme from the monthly salary of the complainant and deducted amount was remitted to the office of OP No.1. It is further case of the complainant that in the year 1995, the Department of Opponent No.1 repealed the family pension scheme 1971 and introduced the new scheme known as Employees pension scheme 1995 w.e.f 16/11/1995 and the OP asked the complainant to submit his willingness to transfer the amount accumulated in the old scheme to new scheme and the complainant has given his willingness for the same and the said willingness is accepted by the OP No.1 and continued the complainant in new scheme.
2(a) The complainant further case of the complainant that after retirement of the complainant, the OP No.2 has sent all w.e.f. 03.07.2005 and P.P.No.PY/PNY/00024375, the monthly pension of the complainant fixed at Rs.755/- per month and accordingly the said amount of pension is being paid to the complainant.
2(b). The complainant further submitted that the OP 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 complainant filed this complaint with a request to direct the OP as above.
3. After service of notice, the OP appeared through their counsel and filed version, wherein the OP 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 complainant is retired employee of M/s KSRTC, Tumkur and left the service with effect from 03.07.2005 and he was a member of erst-while Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971. The OP has been paying pension regularly a sum of Rs.879/- including weightage per month being monthly member pension as per the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.
3(a) The pension proceeds have been credited to the S.B. Account No.0522101063136 maintained with Canara Bank. However, the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of pension paid to him after granting commutation benefits as opted by the claimant. The OP disputes the claim of the claimant as “ A member eligible to pension may, in lieu of pension normally admissible under Paragraph 12, opt on completion of three years from the commencement of the scheme to commute upto a maximum of one third of his pension. Balance pension will be paid as per the option exercised under paragraph 13”. In the instant case, the scheme provides for paying one third of the total pension in one go at the option of the pensioners and the remaining amount would be equated and paid on monthly basis for the reminder period. Accordingly, the claim made by the claimant is not in order.
3(b) The OP further contended that the complainant misleading the Commission by furnishing wrong calculation. The complainant has filed complaint for restoration of the commutation amount, but at the same time he has claiming the revised pension in prayer column, but there is no anything about revised pension in the complaint which is not maintainable. There are no errors in the deduction of the pension as stated by the complainant.
3(c) The OP further contended that the amount has already been paid under the commutation scheme would once again have to be paid by the pension authority and thereby doubling the benefit under the scheme which is impermissible and would be arbitrary and would place the other pensioners who have not acted for commutation at a disadvantage as the person similarly placed as the petitioners would be gaining an advantage. The commutation amount of Rs.439X100 is Rs.43,900/- was already been restored, and pension arrears of Rs.12,005/- is also paid. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainants and OP have filed their affidavit evidence. The complainant has marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P9.
5. We have heard the arguments from both parties.
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2) Whether complainant has entitled for reliefs sought for?
6. Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
7. It is not in dispute that the complainant was worked in KSRTC, Tumakuru. He joined the service on 01.06.1971 and he was retired from the service on 31/07/2005. After retirement, the monthly pension of the complainant fixed at Rs.755/- per month and accordingly the said amount of pension is being paid to complainant. The P.F.No.PY/PAY/00024375. The complainant is pensioner 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 complainant has opted for commutation and 1/3 of the original pension, Rs.378/- was commuted and commuted value of the pension amount of Rs.37,800/- was paid to the complainant.
8. 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. 03.11.2013. Therefore, the complainant is eligible to get full pension/restoration of pension from 03.11.2013, as the complainant has opted commutation only for 100 months. The deduction after the expiry of opted period is illegal.
9. In the course of arguments, counsel for 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.
10. Further, Counsel for 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. In-fact, the complainant has 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.
11. 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.
12. 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".
13. 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.
14. As per notification the complainant is eligible for restoration to normal pension after 31/07/2020 and OP credited and restored the original pension of Rs.1,318/- in October-2020.
15. In the present complaint, the complainant has not fairly reported before this Commission regarding restoration of pension. The OP has already restored the pension during the pendency of this Complaint. The complainant has also claimed past service benefits as per Para 12(3) in prayer column, but not supported by any pleadings in complaint. Hence, this prayer is rejected and we do not find deficiency of service on the part of OP. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we pass the following:-
:O R D E R:
The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No costs.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainants and opposite parties at free of cost.
