State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner vs Rangashamaiah H on 14 August, 2023
Daily Order Date of Filing :22.03.2017 Date of Disposal :14.08.2023 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED:14.08.2023 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT APPEAL Nos.718/2017 to 729/2017 APPEAL Nos.718/2017 to 729/2017 The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office: Peenya, No.62, 3rd Cross, Industrial Suburb, Yeshwanthpur 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560 022 Appellant (By Mrs Nalini Venkatesh, Advocate) (Appellant is same in all the Appeals) -Versus- 1. Appeal No.718/2017 1. Mr Rangashamaiah H S/o Late Hanumaiah Hasanapura, Kesaramadu Post, Urdage Hobli, Tumakuru (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) 2. The General Manager, HMT Watch Factory-4, Devarayapatna, Tumakuru. Respondents 2. Appeal No.719/2017 1. Mr Lakshmaiah R . S/o Mr Ramakrishnaiah, D.No.130, Mathru Nilaya, Behind Water Tank, Lal Bahadur Shastri Road, Vidyanagar, Tumakuru. (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) 2. The General Manager, HMT Watch Factory-4, Devarayapatna, Tumakuru. Respondents 3. Appeal No.720/2017 1. Mr Krishnaiah . S/o late Veerasiddaiah Aged about 61 years, R/o Lal Bahadur Shastry Road, Behind Water Tank, Vidya Nagar, Tumakuru. (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) 2. The Principal Siddaganga Institute of Technology (SITO) Tumakuru. Respondents 4. Appeal No.721/2017 1. Mr Prasanna Kumar S. S/o Mr T.S. Shivarudrappa, Aged about 62 years, D.No.191, Ashok Nagar, Tumakuru-572 103. (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) 2. The General Manager, HMT Watch Factory-4, Devarayapatna, Tumakuru. Respondents 5. Appeal No.722/2017 1. Mr Nagaraju T.S. S/o Shivanna M. Aged about 63 years, Near Neelakanteshwara Temple, Hirehalli & Post. Tumakuru (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) 2. The Divisional Controller KSRTC, Divisional Office, Bus stand Tumakuru. Respondents 6. Appeal No.723/2017 1. Mr Siddaraju T.A . S/o late G.A. Appajappa, Mathru Mamatha, 1st B Link Road, Maruthi Nagar, Tumakuru (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) Respondent 2. The General Manager, HMT Watch Factory-4, Devarayapatna, Tumakuru. 7. Appeal No.724/2017 1. Mr Siddalingappa A . S/o late Adavappa 3-A, Cross, Gangothri Road, Gangothri Nagar, SIT Extension, Tumakuru (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) Respondents 2. The General Manager, HMT Watch Factory-4, Devarayapatna, Tumakuru. 8. Appeal No.725/2017 1. Mr B.Narasimhaiah . S/o late Bhuthanna, C/o Thippeswamy, Sridevi Krupa, Nrupathunga Extension, 5th Main, 2nd Cross, Settihalli Road, Tumakuru-572 102. (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) 2. The General Manager, HMT Watch Factory-4, Devarayapatna, Tumakuru Respondents 9. Appeal No.726/2017 1. Mr P.B. Narasimha Murthy . S/o Mr Babanna, Aged about 56 years, Swetha Nilaya, 9th Cross, 2nd Main, Ashoka Nagar, Tumakuru-572 103. 2. The General Manager, HMT Watch Factory-4, Devarayapatna, Tumakuru Respondents 10. Appeal No.727/2017 1. Mr Mohammed Riyaz U.R. Rehaman . S/o late Mohammed Yemnoor Rehaman, aged about 62 years, Sadashiva Nagar, Near Narasimhaswamy Temple, 6th Main Road, Devegowda Layout, Tumakuru. (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) 2. The Divisional Controller (D.C.) KSRTC, Divisional Office Bus Stand, Tumakuru. Respondents 11. Appeal No.728/2017 1. Mr Dodde Gowda M.L . S/o Mr Lakshmanappa, Aged about 60 years, Mallasandra, Opp. Railway Station, Tumakuru. (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) 2. The General Manager, HMT Watch Factory-4, Devarayapatna, Tumakuru. Respondents 12. Appeal No.729/2017 1. Mr A.R. Srinivasa Murthy S/o late Rangadasaiah, Aged about 59 years, Sree Ranga, 6th Cross, Link Road, 2nd Main, Vijayanagar, Tumakuru. (By Mr Ramaiah T Advocate) 2. The General Manager, HMT Watch Factory-4, Devarayapatna, Tumakuru. Respondents :COMMON ORDER:
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
01. These Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP1, aggrieved by the Order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.147/2015 to 158/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur (for short, the District Forum). Since the facts and law involved in all these cases are one and the same, they have been taken up together for consideration.
02. This Commission heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for Appellant and Respondent No.1. Inspite of service of Notice on Respondent No.2 in all these cases, none appeared and hence, their arguments are taken as heard
03. The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, allowed the Complaint with cost of Rs.2,000/-to each of the Complainants and directed OP1/The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to re-calculate the Monthly Pension of the Complainants, as per Para 12(3) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 by giving weightage of two years to all the Complainants & also extend minimum assured benefits- both in respect of past and present service, with effect from the respective dates of retirement of each of the Complainants, along with arrears of Pension with interest @ 12% p.a and to pay Annual Relief as per Para 32 of EPS 1995 and Dismissed the Complaints as against OP2.
04. Being aggrieved by this order, OP1 is in Appeal inter-alia contending amongst other grounds, that the Department has already regulated the Pension Claim of the Respondent No.1 in all the cases as per Para 10(2) read with Para 12(3) of EPS 1995. Further Appellant contended that, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues involving interpretation of Statues/Rules/Circulars. The jurisdiction of the forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is confined to deficiency in service. Further, if any doubt arises regarding calculation of pension by applying the scheme/rules, the same can be questioned only in the Hon'ble High Courts, which in exercise of powers under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India can resolve the issues by grant of appropriate relief. The District Forum has failed to take into consideration that the Respondent has rightly calculated the pension. Hence, Appellant seeks to set aside the Impugned Orders by allowing the Appeals.
05. Perused the Impugned Orders and grounds of Appeal. On perusal of the records, it is observed that Complainants during their service, joined the Employee PF Scheme; contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995 also. After they retired from their services, they came to know that there are errors in calculation of their entitled pension and gave representations to the OP1 to rectify the same, but, OP did not rectify the mistakes committed in sanction of pension and hence, they filed their respective Complaints before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs. On the contrary, OP1 denied the error in fixation and payment of pension to the respective Complainants
06. Let us examine whether the Complainants are entitled for re-fixation of his Monthly Pension by adding 2 years of weightage, besides examining whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP1?
07. On perusal of the records, the service particulars of the Complainants are as under:
Appeal No. Complaint No. Date of birth Date of joining Date of retirement Past service Actual service Age at exist 718/2017 147/2015 22.07.1959 03.10.1980 30.09.2010 15Y 08M 16D 14Y 10M 15D 51 719/2017 148/2015
08.07.1958 20.08.1979 31.07.2011 15Y 2M 15Y 8M 16D 53 720/2017 149/2015 12.02.1954 03.09.1979 11.02.2012 16Y 2M 12D 16Y 2M 20D 58 721/2017 150/2015 06.08.1951 13.02.1986 01.01.2011 9Y 9M 3D 15Y 1M 16D 60 722/2017 151/2015 15.05.1952 28.01.1980 14.05.2010 15Y 9M 17D 14Y 5M 29D 58 723/2017 152/2015 18.06.1960 26.11.1979 31.03.2003 15Y 10M 19D 07Y 04M 16D 43 724/2017 153/2015 18.04.1959 26.11.1979 30.03.2013 14Y 10M 23D 17Y 4M 16D 54 725/2017 154/2015 01.11.1956 21.01.1980 31.07.2011 15Y 9M 24D 15Y 8M 15D 55 726/2017 155/2015 18.02.1960 03.09.1979 30.07.2011 16Y 2M 12D 15Y 8M 15D 51 727/2017 156/2015 15.05.1953 01.10.1988 12.05.2011 9Y 8M 14D 15Y 5M 29 58 728/2017 157/2015 26.04.1955 25.05.1982 05.04.2013 14Y 2M 14D 17Y 4M 9D 58 729/2017 158/2015 22.11.1956 06.08.1979 31.03.2003 16Y 3M 9D 7Y 4M 16D 47 As per the contents of the above table, it is observed that Complainants/Respondents herein in Appeal Nos.723/2017 & 729/2017, retired prior to attaining the age of Superannuation and rendered pensionable service of 20 years & more. Both of them have complied with the conditions as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood before 24.07.2009, hence, both the Complainants are eligible for weightage of two years.
Likewise, the Complainants/Respondents herein in Appeal Nos.720/2017, 721/2017, 722/2017, 727/2017 and 728/2017 retired on attaining the age of Superannuation and rendered pensionable service of 20 years & more. They have complied with the conditions as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood after 24.07.2009 hence, these Complainants are also eligible for weightage of two years.
Whereas, Complainants/Respondents herein in Appeal Nos.718/2017, 719/2017, 724/2017, 725/2017 and 726/2017 retired prior to 58 years and rendered pensionable service of 20 years & more, but, not complied with the conditions as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood after 24.07.2009, hence, these Complainants/ Respondents are not eligible for weightage of two years.
With regard to Calculation of Monthly Pension to the Complainantsin Appeal Nos.723/2017 and 729/2017, it is observed that both of them retired earlier to amendment of 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995.
,, In so far as Calculation of Monthly Pension to Complainants in rest of the Appeals, it is observed that all these Complainants had retired after amendment of 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood after 15.06.2007 of EPS 1995.
The fact remains that, if the Complainants have not been superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own laid down Rules & Regulations and should have subjected these Members to their entitlement for Reduced monthly Pension at reduction rate of 3% or 4% for every year of short fall in their service, as the age of the Members qualifying for benefits under the PF scheme, falls short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995.
dd Further, the benefit under Para 32 of the Scheme i.e., Annual Relief, it is only Central Government which can grant such reliefs and not the OP1.
08. During the course of arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that they had granted weightage of two years and arrears of entitled Pension amounts have been paid in Appeal Nos.720/2017, 721/2017, 727/2017 and 728/2017 and in rest of the Appeals they have righty fixed pension to the complainants and there is no deficiency in service on his part.
09. Thus with the above observations, the appellant is hereby directed to grant weightage of two years and re-fix the entitled Monthly Pension in so far as Appeal No.722/2017, 723/2017 and 729/2017 as stated supra.
10. On perusal of the documents produced on record it is observed that Appellant has revised the monthly pension by granting weightage of two years and paid the arrears of the complainants in Appeal Nos.720/2017, 721/2017, 727/2017 and 728/2017 in the year 2016, belatedly, since the Complainants have retired during 2003, 2010, 2011 and 2013 respectively. In so far as in Appeal No.718/2017 719/2017, 724/2017 and 725/2017 Appellant has fixed the entitled Monthly Pension of the Complainants as per rule of Employees Provident Scheme.
11. However, we are of the considered opinion that the District Forum awarding interest @ 12% p.a on the arrears of pension is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Under the circumstances, the Impugned Orders requires to the interfered with, in the following terms.
Appeal Nos.720/2017, 721/2017, 722/2017, 723/2017, 727/2017, 728/2017 and 729/2017 are allowed in part. Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 30.11.2016 passed in Consumer Complaint Nos.149/2015, 150/2015, 151/2015, 152/2015. 156/2017, 157/2016 and 158/2015 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tumkur is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by it. The cost awarded by the District Forum of Rs.2,000/- each to these Complainants shall remain un-disturbed. Further Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of this Order However, Appeal Nos.718/2017, 719/2017, 724/2017, 725/2017 and 726/2017 are allowed and consequently, the Impugned Orders passed by the District Forum in Consumer Complaint Nos.147/2015, 148/2015, 153/2015, 154/2016 and 155/2015 are Dismissed with no order as to costs.
The statutory deposit in Appeal 720/2017, 721/2017, 722/2017, 723/2017, 727/2017, 728/2017 and 729/2017is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful The statutory deposit in 718/2017, 719/2017, 724/2017, 725/2017 and 726/2017 is directed to be refunded to the Appellant with proper identification by his Advocate.
Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.718/2017 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.
Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
President *s