State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Babuso D. Shet vs The Regional Provident Fund ... on 7 September, 2023
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI-GOA
In the matter of First Appeal 97 of 2018 in Consumer Complain
52 of 2015.
Before: Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar, Member
Adv. Ms. Rachna A. M. Gonsalves, Member
Mr. Babuso D. Shet,
H. No. 63/2, Walkeshwar Wada,
Betim Bardez, Goa. .....Appellant
V/s
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1,
EPFO, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
24, Patto Plaza, Panaji Goa-403001. .....Respondent-1
The Central Provident Fund Commissioner,
EPFO, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066. .....Respondent-2
Adv. Shri G. S. Kubal present for Appellant.
Adv. Ms. Megha Salkar present for Respondents.
DATE: 07/09/2023
JUDGMENT
[per Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar, Member]
1. By this Judgment and Order we hereby dispose off the First Appeal filed U/s 41 of CPA 1986, against the Judgment and Order dated 07/06/2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 52/2015 of District Commission, North.
12. Appellant is the original Complainant. Respondents are the original Opposite Parties.
3. Appellant states in short as under:
i. Appellant is the permanent resident of the above address. The Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Goa dismissed the original complaint vide Judgment and Order on 07.06.2018. The Judgment and Order dated 07.06.2018 is herein after referred to as 'The Impugned Order'.
ii. Appellant states that he is 68 years old. He was working with M/s Fomento Limited Company and was covered under the provisions of EPF and MP Act under code no. GOA/9915. Appellant's PF number was GOA/9915/113. Appellant got retired on 31.10.2001. The office of Respondents sanctioned him his monthly member pension of Rs.805/- vide PPO no. GA/GOA/3097 with effect from 13.02.2002.
Appellant had opted for commutation of pension. Appellant got his onetime commuted value of Rs.26,800/- which was calculated @100 times the 1/3 value of pension.
iii. Appellant submits that as on the date of filing complaint in October 2016, Respondents have recovered for more than 15 years against 100 months commuted value paid of 1/3 pension. In case of Government employees, after affecting deduction for 15 years, the full pension is restored. Total recovery made by the Respondents towards recovery of commuted value is now more than Rs.51,456/- as against of Rs.26,800/-paid to the Appellant towards commuted value.
2iv. Appellant submits that Appellant has completed more than 20 years of contributed/service to the Provident Fund/Pension Fund. He was therefore eligible for benefits of 2 years weightage period which the Respondent has not given. However during the adjudication of complaint before the Forum, the Respondent suo moto corrected their error and revised his monthly pension by giving weightage period of 2 years as contemplated under Para 10(2) of the EPS Scheme.
v. Appellant states that Appellant was retired from service and was unemployed at the age of 53 years. He did not have source of his income. The Appellant therefore had to claim for 'Early Pension' under paragraph 12(7) of the Scheme. It states that 'A member if he so desires, may be allowed to draw an early pension from a date earlier than 58 years of age but not earlier than 50 years of age. In such cases, the amount of pension shall be reduced at the rate of three percent, for every year the age falls short of 58 years'. This paragraph authorize the Respondents to deduct 3% of his pension upto the age of 58 years.
vi. Appellant states that the impugned order passed by the learned Forum is in violation of the principles of Natural justice, equity and good conscience and is contrary to the provisions of law and is not a speaking order.
vii. Appellant submits that, the learned Forum erred in holding that there is no provision in the EPS' 95 to withdraw the option of Commutation of pension with 3 interest by refunding the amount take. Learned Forum erred to note that there is no provision in the Scheme preventing the workman to revoke his option.
viii. Appellant submits that, the Learned Forum failed to appreciate that the Respondent have suo moto corrected their mistake of not giving benefits of 2 years weightage/bonus period which they revised his original pension from Rs.805/- to Rs.941/- and even paid arrears amounting to Rs.13,554/- vide their 'Report of revised Pension Worksheet' dated 28.2.2018.
ix. The Learned Forum failed to appreciate that there is no provision in the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 or under the EPF Act to allow the Respondents to continue deductions towards Early Pension beyond the age of 58 years of the Pensioner.
4. Respondents states in short as under:-
a. The Respondents herein state that Deficiency of service or unfair trade practice is a pre-requisite to file any complaint before the Consumer Forum. This element is missing in the present complaint which is the subject matter of the present Appeal. There is no Deficiency of Service on the part of the Respondents herein. The Respondents have acted strictly based upon the provisions laid in the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. On the contrary prejudice and unnecessary loss of time and money is caused to the Respondents herein as the Respondents are dragged to the court for no fault of theirs.4
b. The Respondents herein states that it is bound by the provisions under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 and therefore cannot ignore any provision for the benefit of the Appellant herein and the reliefs asked by the Appellant cannot be granted and are outside its scope. The reliefs claimed by the Appellant/original Complainant are alien to the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme,1995, and therefore cannot be granted.
c. Respondent states that, the Complainant retired at the age of 53 as also rightly said by the Appellant. Appellant claimed for pension at the age of 53 years making him eligible for pension under Para 12(7) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. 'A member if he so desires, may be allowed to draw monthly reduced pension from a date earlier than 58 years of age. In such cases the amount of pension shall be reduced at the rate of (three per cent), for every year the age falls short for 58 years'.
d. The Respondents herein state that the deduction of Rs.133/- is rightly calculated. The Appellant as stated in Para 5 page 3 of the Appeal memo has failed to understand the words in the Para12(7) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The monthly deduction of Rs.28/- as calculated by the Appellant is the approximate amount to be deducted for one year. The Appellant has failed to consider the deductions for the remaining four years.
e. The Respondents herein state that the commutation of pension exercised by the Appellant was granted to the Appellant as Para 12A of EPS 1995, which read as follows. 'A member is eligible to pension may, in 5 lieu of pension normally admissible under paragraph 12, opt on completion of three years from the commencement of this scheme, to commute upto a maximum of One Third of his pension so as to receive hundred times the monthly pension so commuted as commuted value of pension'.
f. The Respondents herein state that the amount of Rs.26,800/- received as Commuted Value by the Appellant is calculated as One Third of pension of Appellant i.e. Rs. 805/- which comes to Rs.268/-. Therefore hundred times of Rs.268/- is calculated as Rs.26,800/-, which is the commuted value received by the Appellant.
g. There is no provision in the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, as prayed by the Complainant herein, to withdraw the option of commutation of pension with interest or otherwise, by refunding the amount taken. The Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, does not provide for withdrawal of commutation by refunding the amount paid to the Appellant.
h. The Respondents have rightly and strictly calculated the pension of the Complainant based on the Rules and Regulations laid down in the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995.
i. The Respondents herein state that the Appellant is neither entitled for any refund towards early pension nor is he entitled for any reliefs claimed in relation to withdrawal of his option of commutation or refund the commuted value or otherwise as prayed by the Appellant herein in the complaint.6
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
1. Appellant's details : Shri Babuso D. Shet, P.F.A/c No.:
GOA/9915/113 (PPO No. 30970), Date of birth: 01/11/1948, Date of joining: 01/11/1975, Date of exit: 31/10/2001, Date of commencement of pension: 13/02/2002, Type of pension: Early pension/Reduced pension (i.e. before attaining 58 years of age), Pensionable Salary: 5548/-, Wage on 16/11/1995: 3000/-, Non Contributory Period: NIL.
2. Pensionary benefit for Actual service (i.e. from 16/11/1995 to 31/10/2001):
Length of present service 31-10-2001 to 16-11-1995 (5 years, 11 month and 15 days). So pensionable service is rounded off to 6 yrs. Weightage= 2 yrs (As length of service is more than 20 yrs) Total pensionable service = 6+2= 8 yrs. So pension as per formula mentioned in PARA12(2) is :-
Pensionable Service × Pensionable Salary 8 × 5548
------------------------------------------------- = ----------- = 634.057 70 70 Therefore rounded to Rs.634/-
3. Pensionary benefit for Past service (i.e. from 01/11/1975 to 15/11/1995):
Date of superannuation i.e. 58 if born on 1-11-1948, would be 1-11-2006. For factor (table B) Length of service: 01-11-2006 To 16-11-1995 i.e. 10 years, 11 months and 15 days. As it is less than 11 years, the factor as per table B -2.72. Pensioner's past service is more than 20yrs & salary on 16/11/1995 is Rs.3000/- (i.e. more than Rs.2500/-) Amount as per table in Para 12 (3) =
170. Hence, past service benefit under EPS 1995 = Amount as per para 12(3) × Factor as per table B' =2.72×170=Rs.462/-
4. Total Pension Payable:
Total monthly member pension = Actual service benefit + Past service benefit = 634+462=1096/-. Pensioner had opted for early pension from 13/02/2002. So, monthly member pension was reduced @3% per annum for every year the age falls short of 58 years. (As per Para 12(7) of EPS,1995 Scheme). It is calculated 7 as 941 less 3% = 909 - 57 years, 909 less 3% = 882 - 56 years 856 less 3% = 830 - 55 years, 830 less 3% = 805 - 54 years, 805
- 53 years, Pension as Commutation and early pension 1/3 of the original pension, 805 × 1/3 ×100= 268, 268× 100= 26,800/-
Hence, Reduced Pension= 1096 × 0.858734 = 941.17/-rounded off to Rs.941/-. He will get monthly member pension of Rs.941/- lifetime instead of 1,096. Accordingly monthly member pension will be Rs.941/- every month.
5. Commuted Pension:
Commuted Pension = 1/3 of reduced monthly pension, = 1/3 × 941 = 313.66, round off to Rs.314/-. Commuted Amount = 314 × 100 = 31400/-, Monthly member pension payable after commutation = 941-314 = Rs.627/-
4. In view of above facts and circumstances we pass the following:
ORDER i. The Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
ii. Judgment of District Commission, North dated 17/06/2018 is upheld.
Pronounced in Open Court.
Proceedings in this matter stands closed.
[Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar] Member [Adv. Ms. Rachna A.M. Gonsalves] Member kk 8