State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Central Provident Fund Commissioner & ... vs Namdeo M. Salgaonkar & Another on 6 February, 2024
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI-GOA
In the matter of First Appeal 56 of 2019 in Consumer Complaint
23 of 2018.
Before: Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar, Member
Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member
Central Provident Fund Commissioner
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Palace,
New Delhi-110066. .....Appellant-1
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
Plot No. 24, Patto Plaza,
Panaji Goa-403001. ......Appellant-2
V.
Shri Namdeo M. Salgaonkar
H. No. 469, Post Dodamarg,
Dhantwadi, Taluka Dodamarg,
Maharashtra-416512. .....Respondent
Adv. Ms. S. Salkar present for Appellant
Adv. Shri G. S. Kubal present for Respondent-1
Respondent-2 deleted as per Order dated 15/04/2021.
DATE: 06/02/2024
JUDGEMENT
[per Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member]
1. This Judgment and Order shall finally dispose off Appeal filed by the Appellant under section 15 of the CPA 1986 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 01/8/2019 passed by District Commission North, Porvorim Goa in CC/23/2018.
12. The Appellant No-1 and 2 herein were OP-1 and 2 respectively and the Respondent-1 was original complainant before District Commission North.
3. The brief facts of the case:
a) The contention of the Appellant is:
i. That Respondent is an ex employee of M/s KTCL and became member when pension scheme was made applicable with effect from 01/6/1984 with PF account No. 10112/529 with date of birth as 01/11/1955 which was rectified as 02/6/1955 on the basis of the letter of M/s KTCL with date of birth certificate, marriage certificate and service book of the Respondent who rejoined with different PF account No. Goa/10112/3651 with different date of birth as 26/08/1957.
ii. As stated by the Appellant that Respondent-1 in fact had failed to discharge that the pension in the first account he was granted scheme certificate on 17/12/2001 and Appellant-2 had already released to the Respondent-1 in the year 2005 reduced pension since he had allained the age of 50 years with effect from 02/06/2005 and as far as the second EPF account No. 3651, an application under 10C was made which was the form for withdrawal and on 16/10/2017 the Respondent-1 was paid the amount of Rs.2,59,388/- as PF. Amount of Rs.49,568/- as EPS in full settlement of the amount for which he was entitled to.
iii. That there is no scope, evident to raise any grievance/plea against the Appellant-2 and also to seek merger of the 2 PF accounts as further stated by the Appellant and that the Respondent hence disclosed the reduced pension being received at the 2 time of rejoining and enjoyed the pension fund for the second spell of service also.
iv. That by Judgment and Order dated 01/08/2019 in CC/23/2018, the District Commission North partly allowed the complaint with the following order. The Opposite Party-1 and 2 directed to pay monthly members pension as applicable on his retirement under superannuation with interest a) 18% from the date of retirement b) Both the Opposite Party- 1and 2 are severally and jointly liable to pay Rs. 30,000/-
as a compensation and cost of litigation.
The Appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal on the following grounds:
i. That the Impugned Judgment and Order is illegal and perverse and had failed to consider the fact that the Respondent-1 was already granted the pension in respect of the first account on 13/7/2005 and hence no grievance could be made in respect of any alleged non payment of amount under this account.
ii. That in case of the second PF account, the Respondent-1 withdraw the entire amount of his application and so no scope to grant any benefit under the second account that there is no power nor jurisdiction in the forum to grant interest under the CPA 1986 because interest is a statutory entitlement which is not specifically provided under CPA 1986.
The Appellant thus prayed that the Impugned Judgment and Order passed by District Commission North be quashed and set aside.
4. The case of the Respondent-1 is herein as under:
i. That the Respondent had joined the Kadamba Transport Corporation on 14/04/1983 as a bus 3 conductor and his contribution was continuously remitted under the provident fund No. Goa/10112/529 and further that on 23/3/2021 under false charges the Respondent-1 was terminated. That the Respondent-1 had worked for 19 continuous years until his termination and that the Appellant-1 and 2 had paid Rs.529/- as a monthly financial assistance on his termination by The Kadamba Transport Corporation.
ii. Further that the matter of his illegal termination was adjudicated before the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal at Panaji and the service dispute was amicably settled and the Corporation allowed Respondent-1 to resume his duty ensuing Respondent-1 was reinstated back to service as a Bus Conductor on 23/2/2009 by the Kadamba Transport Corporation and upon attaing 60 years of age, the Respondent-1 retired on superannuation on 31/8/2017 from date of his resumption till his retirement, the Respondent-1 was the member of the employees' pension scheme for 9 years continuously and that after his retirement, monthly pension payable by the Appellant was his only source of income. Further that after his retirement, the Kadamba Transport Corporation issued a new pension fund No. Goa/10112/3651 and due to this, the Respondent-1 was denied his full pension. Additionally that the disputes of his illegal termination was in fact pending before the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal and that Appellant allotted him new PF number after his re-instatement and further that the Appellant were duty bond to combine the entire service of the Respondent-1 and accordingly sanction monthly member's pension to him after his retirement. That the Respondent-1 has contributed 28 years to the pension fund and he is entitled for 4 two years of weightage period of service and thus entitled for pension for 30 years of pensionable service.
iii. Being aggrieved the Respondent-1 filed the complaint before District Commission North on prayed For an Order for revoking PPO No. GA/GOA/5885 granting 'early pension' and directing the Appellants to pay monthly members pension as applicable on his retirement under super annuation.
For compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental torture and harassment.
For Rs.50,000/- towards expenses in purchasing the matter.
For Rs.50,000/- towards cost and 18% interest to be paid on entire amount payable including the amount towards pending pension amount.
5. The District Commission, North, was pleased to pass Judgment and Order dated 01/08/2019 and partly allow the complaint wherein the Appellant-1 and 2 were directed to pay monthly member's pension as applicable on his retirement under superannuation with an interest of 18% from the date of retirement and both the Appellants-1 and 2 are severally and jointly liable to pay Rs.30,000/- as a compensation and cost of litigation.
6. The documents relied on were the same as placed before the District Commission North.
7. Advocate Ms M. Salkar argued on behalf of Appellant and submitted that two services cannot be merged together as Respondent-1 ceased to be a members.
5Further that the Appellants have considered the service from 2009 to 2017 which is less 10 years. Along with 16 years prior service the Advocate further submitted that there is a gap of 8 years in between.
8. Also that when the Respondent-1 applied to 2nd service, he did not inform PF that he is already receiving the pension and the Advocate further added that the District Commission North failed to consider that the two services cannot be merged and therefore there is no deficiency on part of the Appellants as the pension was rightly calculated and no weightage to be given and prayed that the appeal be allowed.
9. On the other hand Advocate Shri G. S. Kubal argued on behalf of the Respondent-1 and pointed out the District Commission North in its Judgment and Order granted the Respondent pension and that as pension is concerned to services which are directly on contribution.
10. He further submitted that the Respondent had joined the Kadamba Transport Corporation on 14/04/1983 and his service was terminated on 23/3/2001 which is 17 years, 11 months and 9 days and that he was re- instated on 23/3/2009 until superannuation 31/08/2017 which is 8 years 6 months and 8 days. Hence his total contribution was 26 years 5 months and 17 days.
11. Advocate for Respondent further submitted that the contribution for two terms should be merged together and pension revised. He further pointed out that Order passed by District Commission was correct and that the appeal be dismissed.
12. On perusing through the entire material on record and on hearing the arguments, advanced by Advocates of 6 both parties we observed that the District Commission in its Judgment and Order paragraph 19 has rightly pointed out in its findings that the Respondent is entitled for a monthly pension with an additional pension of 2 years under paragraph 10(2) of the employees' pension scheme act 1995.
13. We are in complete agreement with paragraph 20 and 21 of the said Judgment and Order.
14. Also on the point raised by the Appellant in the appeal at paragraph 14 A wherein the Appellant has placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Ministry of Water Resources Vs Shreepat Rao Kande in 2019 SCC online SC1780 where it was held that dispute with regard to employment and claims under the Employees Provident Fund and miscellaneous provisions Act, 1953 would not come within the jurisdiction of consumer forum.
15. We place reliance on the Judgment passed by this Commission in FA/42/2019 Gopal Sinai Savoikar V/s The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and others wherein the negligence on part of authorities cannot be glossed over and for the Respondent complaint as the Complainant mentioned at paragraph 6 of his complaint stated that after his retirement monthly pension payable by the Opposite Parties was his only source of income. Also that in his complaint at paragraph 8 Opposite Party-2 did not act which amounts to nothing but deficiency and one cannot ignore the mental harassment that the Respondent has been subjected to and the 2 services ought to be merged . District Commission has rightly compensated the Respondent for the same.
716. We observed that the Respondent had filed complaint as he was denied his monthly Member Pension and was subjected to harassment on account of the said denial and which we find is a deficiency on part of the Appellants and therefore the reliance placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment cannot assist the Appellants as the Respondent has not approached this Commission in terms of employment or claim but instead for deficiency in service. Therefore in light of the aforesaid discussing and findings we are inclined to pass the following:
Order
1. The Appeal is dismissed
2. The Order of District Commission North passed on 01/08/2019 in CC/23/2018 is upheld and modified in terms of B. That the Appellants are severally and jointly liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to Respondents.
3. Proceedings closed.
4. Pronounced in Open Court.
[Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar] Member [Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves] Member Vs 8