Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1832/2018

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vishnappa - Opp.Party(s)

Nandita Haldipur

25 Apr 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing:13.11.2018

                                                              Date of Disposal:25.04.2023

 

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

 

DATED:25.04.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

 

APPEAL Nos.1826/2018 to 1838/2018

 

 

The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organization,

Regional Office

New Block No.10,

Behind Income Tax office,

Navanagar, Hubli – 580025.                                          Appellant

(By Mrs Nandita Haldipur, Advocate

(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)

 

 

      -Versus-

 

1. Appeal No.1826/2018

Mr Ganesh
S/o Mr Siddaramappa Araksali,

Aged about 63 years,

R/at Amaragole,

Hubli, Dharwad District
(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                                       Respondent

 

2.Appeal No.1827/2018

Mr Srikanth
S/o Mr Panduranga Balekundri

Aged about 62 years

R/at Urankar Building,

Samarthnagar, 4^th Cross,

Shivaji  Nagar Post,

Belagavi – 590016.

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                                     Respondent 

                                                                            

3.Appeal No.1828/2018

Mr Pandurangasa
S/o Mr Nagappa Khiroji,

Aged about 62 years,

R/at Gavi Oni,

Kariyammannagudi Back Side,

Hanumasagar Chawl, Hubli

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                                     Respondent

 

4.Appeal No.1829/2018

Mr Shivaji
S/o Mr Hanumantharao Khaire

Aged about 63 years,

R/at Kamalapura,

Kamti Oni, Dharwad District

(By Ms Geetha Bai G,Advocate)                                      Respondent

 

5.Appeal No.1830/2018

Mr Raghupathi
S/o Mr Ramakrishnacharya,

Aged about 69 years

R/at No.28/2, Rajeshwari,

No.4, Malamaddi,

Dharwad District                                                           Respondent 

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)

 

6.Appeal No.1831/2018

Mr Virupaxi
S/o Mr Shivamurthy Majagi,

Aged about 67 years,

R/at Matti Plot No.15,

Near APMC, Mahantha Nagar,

Behind Murughamath,

Dharwad District

(By Ms Geetha Bai G Advocate)                                      Respondent 

 

7.Appeal No.1832/2018

Mr Vishnappa
S/o Mr Rajappa Mane,

Aged about 66 years,

R/at Janatha Plot No.77,

Michigan Compound,

Dharwad District – 580006.

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                                     Respondent

 

8.Appeal No.1833/2018

Mr Shashidhar A Holiyannavar
S/o Mr Andaneppa,

Aged about 73 years,

R/at Gurushivananda Nilaya,

B/H P & T Quarters,

Masari Extension, Gadag District

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                                     Respondent 

 

 

 

 

9.Appeal No.1834/2018

Mr Vilas
S/o Mr Devaputrappa Bagalkoti,

Aged about 67 years,

R/at Basel Mission Church,

Mission Compound,

Karwar Road, Hubli-580020                                          Respondent 

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)

 

10.Appeal No.1835/2018

Mr Lakshmappa,
S/o Mr Basappa,

Aged about 65 years,

R/at Markanur,

Rannebennur, Haveri District

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                                     Respondent 

 

11.Appeal No.1836/2018

Mr Ananth,
S/o Mr Subramanya Bhat,

Aged about 66 years,

R/at   Siragungi,

Uppinapatra, Kumta,

North Kanara District

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                                     Respondent 

 

12.Appeal No.1837/2018

Mr Gurusiddappa,
S/o Mr Huchappa Jangannavar,

Aged about 62 years,

R/at H.No19, Shanti Nivas,

Subhash Nagar,

Devargudihal,

Old Hubli, Hubli,

Dharwad District

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                           Respondent 

 

13.Appeal No.1838/2018

Smt Juliana,
W/o Mr Cyril Fernandis,

Aged about 62 years,

R/at Vijayanagar,

1^st Cross, 'Aditya',

Rajarepete, Sirsi,

North Canara Dist.

(By Ms Geetha Bai G, Advocate)                                     Respondent 

 

:COMMON ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       These Appealsare filed under Section 27A of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by JDr/OP aggrieved by the Order dated 28.06.2018passed in Execution Petition Nos.12/2016 to 21/2016, and 75/2017 to 77/2017 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short, the District Forum).

 

 

2.       Perused the Impugned Order & Grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsels on record.

 

3.       On Perusal of the record, it reveals that the present Appeal is preferred, after the District Forum had passed its considered detailed Order in Execution Petitions.

 

4.       Aggrieved by this Order, OP is in Appeal inter alia contending amongst other grounds regarding accounting of service – “that part of a year shall stand ignored and only fully completed year of service will be reckoned for calculation of eligible years of completed service”.  Per contra, the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent is that as per universal law in vogue, part of service in a year if it falls less than 50% shall stand ignored and if it is in excess of 50%, the same will be rounded off to the next higher year.

 

5.       It is relevant to rely on the decision reported in 2017 (2) CPR 795 (NC) in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another Vs Subhash Chandra Banerjee and another, wherein,                     in Para 12 it was held that -

         

12. Before parting with the case, we are constrained                      to observe that having regard to the object and spirit                 of the 1952 Act, the quantum of amount involved as also the fact that the technical issue sought to be raised                  in the present Petition may arise in a handful  of cases, involving retired employees, the Provident Commissioner would have done well in graciously accepting the order passed by the State Commission, instead of driving the Complainant in litigation up to  this Forum. We dare say that, in all probability, the cost of litigation incurred in the case would be more than the petty amount of monthly pension, the Complainant might ultimately receive.

 

6.  Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No.6994/2021 decided on 01.12.2021, in Para 32 held that

32. While we accept the settled position of law that the rule applicable in matters of determination of pension                 is that which exists at the time of retirement, we                are unable to find any legal basis in the action of                   the Respondent University of selectively allowing the benefit of Rule 25 (a).  The law, as recognized by this court in Deoki Nandan Prasad and Syed Yousuddin Ahmed (supra) unequivocally stated that the pension payable to an employee on retirement shall be determined on the rules existing at the time of retirement.  However, the law does not allow the employer to apply the rules differently in relation to persons who are similarly situated.

 

7.    Thus, the District Forum after considering the submission of the Learned Counsel for the DHr/Complainant and also records in Execution Petition, had applied its mind and directed the OP to round off the age of retirement to the nearest year for considering reduced pension as per Para 12 (7) of EPS 1995 in case of early pension and the same has to be accepted in letter & spirit.  In this context, it would be appropriate to make mention of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2012, SC 2881, in the case of Gurgaon Gramin Bank Vs Smt. Khazani and another, decided on 04.09.2012, wherein it was held that once Authority like District Commission takes a view, the Bank should graciously accept it rather going for further litigation.

 

8.   With the foregoing observations, it appears that for the purposes of the calculation of pensionary benefit, the accounting of service which is more than 50% of the particular year which is under consideration has been rounded off as one year, on which, this Commission has no second contra-opinion.  Accordingly, Appeal Nos.1826/2018 to 1838/2018 are hereby stands Dismissed.

 

 

9.       Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.1826/2018 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.

 

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

 

                                                                    

 President

*s