BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NOS. 1040/2019 to 1044/2019
A.No.1040/2019
M. Venkata Swamy S/o Late Adhinarayanappa
A/a 64 years, Ward No.7, Near Police Quarters,
Bagepalli Town.
Appellant/s
A.No.1041/2019
M.Ramachandrappa S/o Gurrappa,
A/a 72 years, Avaganapalli,
Retd. Bank Superintendent,
Holagagere Village & Post,
Srinivasapura Tqluk, Kolar District.
Appellant/s
A.No.1042/2019
K.V.Gangaiah S/o Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 65 years, Retd Bank Superintendent,
No.328, Behind Pathi Hospital,
Prashanthnagar, Chikkaballapur Town.
Appellant/s
A.No.1043/2019
C.Krishnappa S/o Late channarayappa,
Aged about 63 years, Retd Bank Superintendent,
House No.537, 6th Block, Ward No.8, M.G.road,
Chikkaballapura Town.
Appellant/s
A.No.1044/2019
A. Sriramappa S/o Late Adinarayanappa,
A/a 64 years, Ward No.7, Near Police Quarters,
Bagepalli Town.
Appellant/s
(By Sri. D.V.Lakshminarayan, Adv.,)
V/s
Appeal Nos. 1040/2019 to 1043/2019
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Provident Fund Organization, No. ‘F’ 28, N.F.U Block
L.T.I. Campus, Doorvaninagar, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru-560 016.
2. The Manager, Primary Co-Operative Agriculture and
Rural Development Bank Ltd., Srinivasapur, Kolar Dist.
Appeal No.1044/2019.
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Provident Fund Organization, No. ‘F’ 28, N.F.U Block
L.T.I. Campus, Doorvaninagar, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru-560 016.
2. Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund
Organization, Doddapet Post Office, 1st Floor,
Kolar Town – 563 101.
(For R1 by Smt.Nanditha Haldipur, Adv.,)
(R2 – Served – Absent)
:COMMON ORDER:
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appeal Nos.1040/2019 to 1044/2019 are filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the order dated:29.06.2019 passed by the Kolar District Consumer Commission in C.C.Nos. 68/2018, 76/2018, 80/2018, 81/2018 and 18/2019.
2. All these appeals are arising out of a common order and the subject matter involved in the above appeals are one and the same and the Opposite Parties are also one and same. Hence, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are taken up together to pass a common order.
3. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to by their respective rank as arrayed before the District Commission.
4. The complainants before the District Commission have preferred these appeals against the dismissal order passed by the District Commission, wherein the District Commission has dismissed their complaints as barred by limitation, these complainants submits that they are all the members of the Provident Fund Scheme and they have retired at the age of 58 years and as per the provisions of the 1985 Scheme, they are entitled for two years weightage, but the District Commission without considering their merit, has dismissed the complaints holding that there is a delay in filing the complaints. Hence, they preferred to set-aside the order passed by the District Commission and also prays to re-fix the pension by providing two years weightage along with compensation.
5. We have heard the arguments of both parties.
6. The respondent filed written arguments along with chart to show that whether the appellants are entitled for two years weightage and liable for getting re-fixation of the pension.
7. On going through the said chart, we noticed that the appellant/complainant in appeal No.1040/2019 has joined the scheme on 01.08.1998 and Date of Leave (DOL) of the scheme is 31.10.2009. He rendered a pensionable service only 7 years 2 months and 30 days. Therefore, he is not eligible for two years weightage as because the minimum requirement for 2 years weightage is 20 years of pensionable service. Hence, the appellant/complainant in appeal No.1040/2019 is not entitled for such benefit. Further, we noticed that the complainant had not made any requisition for withdrawal of the benefits and in spite of his eligible for withdrawal of the benefit. Hence, it is proper to give direction to the complainant to apply for the benefit as contemplated under the provisions of above scheme.
8. Further, in appeal No.1041/2019, the appellant/complainant has joined the scheme on 01.08.1998 and Date of Leave (DOL) of the scheme is 31.12.2001. He rendered a pensionable service only 3 years 4 months and 30 days. Therefore, he is not eligible for two years weightage as because the minimum requirement for 2 years weightage is 20 years of pensionable service. Hence, the appellant/complainant in appeal No.1041/2019 is not entitled for such benefit. Further, In this case also the complainant had not made any requisition for withdrawal of the benefits and in spite of his eligible for withdrawal of the benefit. Hence, it is proper to give direction to the complainant to apply for the benefit as contemplated under the provisions of above scheme.
9. Further, in appeal No.1042/2019, the appellant/complainant has joined the scheme on 01.09.1996 and Date of Leave (DOL) of the scheme is 04.03.2012. He rendered a pensionable service only 15 years and 4 days. Therefore, he is not eligible for two years weightage as because the minimum requirement for 2 years weightage is 20 years of pensionable service. Hence, the appellant/complainant in appeal No.1041/2019 is not entitled for such benefit. Further, In this case the complainant is already receiving monthly member pension.
10. Further, in appeal No.1043/2019, the appellant/complainant has joined the scheme on 01.09.1996 and Date of Leave (DOL) of the scheme is 20.05.2014. He rendered a pensionable service only 17 years 8 months and 20 days. Therefore, he is not eligible for two years weightage as because the minimum requirement for 2 years weightage is 20 years of pensionable service. Hence, the appellant/complainant in appeal No.1043/2019 is not entitled for such benefit. Further, In this case the complainant is already receiving monthly member pension.
11. Further, in appeal No.1044/2019, the appellant/complainant has joined the scheme on 01.11.1996 and Date of Leave (DOL) of the scheme is 30.06.2014. He rendered a pensionable service only 12 years 4 months and 01 day. Therefore, he is not eligible for two years weightage as because the minimum requirement for 2 years weightage is 20 years of pensionable service. Hence, the appellant/complainant in appeal No.1044/2019 is not entitled for such benefit. Further, In this case the complainant not yet submitted 10D form to the Respondent/Opposite Party. Hence, the appellant/complainant in this case is directed to submit 10D form to the respondent/Opposite Party in order to claim benefits.
12. In view of the above reasons and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the appellants in all these appeals are not entitled to get two years weightage and re-fixation of pension. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal Nos.1040/2019 to 1044/2019 filed by the appellants/complainants are dismissed.
The original of this order shall be kept in appeal No.1040/2019 and a copy thereof shall be kept in other connected appeals.
No order as to costs.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
