Date of Filing :11.04.2022

                                                            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.963/2022

1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

    Employees Provident Fund Organisation

    Sub-Regional Office

    Bilwashree Arcade

    15^th Cross, SIT Main Road

    Tumakuru-572 102

2. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

    Sub-Regional Office

    Peenya

    Bengaluru-560 058                                                   Appellants

    (By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate)     

     -Versus-

Mr V P Rangaiah

S/o Late Puttaiah

Aged about 66 years

R/o Sree Ranga Nilaya

6^th Cross, Vidyanagar

Tumkuru-572 103                                                           Respondent

:ORDER:

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by the OPs 1 & 2, aggrieved by the Order dated 07.03.2022 passed in Complaint Nos.12/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkuru (for short, the District Commission).

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

3.       The District Commission after enquiring into the matter allowed the Complaint partly and held OPs1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to re-calculate and revise the Monthly pension as per Para 12(3) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995, by extending the minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service separately, with effect from the date of retirement of the Complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a till payment with cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant.

4.       Being aggrieved by this Order, OPs 1 and 2 are in Appeal contending amongst other grounds that, the District Forum erroneously allowed the Complaint directing the Appellants to re-calculate and revise the Pension of the Respondent/Complainant as per Para 12(3) and to pay arrears with interest and cost.  Further contended that, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues involving interpretation of Statues/Rules and Circulars.   The jurisdiction of the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is confined to deficiency in service on the part of Employer and not otherwise. Merely because the Appellant did not pay pension as demanded by the Respondent, the same do not amount to deficiency in service.  Further, if any doubt arises regarding calculation of pension by applying the Scheme/Rules can be questioned only in the High Court, which, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, can strike down a Rule/Law/Scheme, if the same is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the Impugned Order is arbitrary & illegal and hence, deserves to be set aside.

5.       Perused the Impugned Order, the documents on record and the Grounds of Appeal.

6.       Let us examine, the details of service particulars of the Complainant, as per documents on record, which is as hereunder :

On perusal of the contents of the above table, it is observed that   as on the date of the retirement, the Complainant had complied with the condition as laid down in Para 10 (2) of EPS, as it stood before the amendment to 24.07.2009 and accordingly he is eligible for weightage of two years.

With regard Monthly Pension, it is seen that he retired from the service before 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995, the date of Amendment to Para 12 and hence, his Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007. 

          With regard to benefit under Para 32 of the Scheme i.e., Annual Relief, it is noticed that it is only the Central Government can grant such reliefs and not the OPs, as such the same cannot be granted by the OPs.

7.       Further, it is observed in the Synopsis of Arguments filed by the Appellant at Paragraph No.5, it is specifically stated by the Appellant that the Respondent had rendered service from 01.07.1980 to 31.03.2001 and opted for pension from 08.04.2003 being early pension, has been fixed as per Para 12(4) & Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995 which works out to Rs.960/-.  Further, the Pension was reduced at 3% p.a as per Para 12(7) of EPS 1995 at the age 50 years to Rs.752/-.  Further, the Pension was reduced by deducting 90% as return of Capital under Para 13 of EPS 1995, which works out to Rs.677/- as the Minimum Monthly Pension.  The Appellants contend that they have rightly calculated the Pension of its Member/Complainant, but, the District Forum has erroneously directed the Appellants to re-calculate and revise the Pension as per Para 12(3) of EPS 1995.  Further, they have relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2859 in the matter of K.Chennakesavalu Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, rep. by its Commissioner, New Delhi, wherein, in Para 9 it was held that – “However, I deem it proper to clarify that this Judgement is only with regard to Para 12(4) (a) and (b) and no opinion is expressed with regard to Para 12(3) and 12(5)”.

8.       The point for consideration in this Appeal is whether Complainant/Respondent herein is entitled for re-fixation of his entitled Monthly Pension as per Para 12 (3) or 12(4) of EPS 1995?

Para 12(3) (a) and (b) 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

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.

Para 12 (4) (a) (b) reads as under :

12(4) - In the case of an employee who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme 1971 and has attained the age of 48 years, but, less than 53 years on the 16^thNovember 1995, the superannuation / retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of:-

1. Pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16^th November1995 or Rs. 438/- per month whichever is more;
2. Past service benefit as provided in sub-paragraph (3) subject to a minimum of Rs. 600/- per month provided the past service is 24 years.  Provide further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefits taken together shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum of Rs. 325/- per month.

9.       It is observed from the impugned order that the Complainant/Respondent herein was employees of M/s HMT Watch Factory, Tumkur and during his service he joined the Employee Provident Fund Scheme and subsequently he continued to contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and thereafter he continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. Further, perusal of the records reveals that the Complainant’s Date of Birth is 08.04.1953; he retired on 01.07.1980 and as on 15.11.1995, the age of the Complainant/Respondent was 42 years, 07 months & 8 days, which is rounded off to 43 years.   Thus, the Complainant’s entitled Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per provision of Para 12 (3) of EPS 1995, as he has not attained the age of 48 years.

10.     It is relevant to make mention of the fact that the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2004 KAR 2859 in the case of K.Chennakesavalu Vs the Employees Provident Fund Organisation, rep. by its Commissioner, New Delhi relied upon by the Appellant is not applicable to the present case on hand, since in this case, the petitioner had attained the age of 48 years hence, Para 12 (4) is applicable as stated supra for calculation of his entitled Monthly Pension.  It is to be noted herein that no opinion is expressed with regard to Para 12 (3) and 12(5) of EPS 1995 as such, it did not come to assistance of the Appellant.

11.     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 is allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned Order dated 07.03.2022 passed in Complaint Nos.12/2020 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tumkuru is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned.  All the other directions given to the OPs shall remain intact.

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

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

                                                                          President

*s