State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Regional Provident Fund ... vs V. Madhavi, W/O Kannan, on 19 August, 2011
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/10/183 (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/11/2009 in Case No. CC 230/05 of District Kannur) 1. The RPF Commissioner ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. V.Madhavi ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.183/2010
JUDGMENT DATED:19-08-2011
PRESENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
8th & 9th Floor, Mayoor Bhavan,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
: APPELLANTS
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
V.K.Complex, Fort Road, Kannur District.
(By Adv:Sri.K.Ramachandran Nair)
Vs.
1. V. Madhavi, W/o Kannan,
Balusseri (H)-P.O, Veli Manam, Kannur Dist.
2. K.Rohini, Kavunkal (H),
Athikkal.P.O, Keezhpally.
3. Annamma Padiyil, Padiyil House,
Vattappara.P.O, Keezhpally. : RESPONDENTS
4. The Secretary,
Board of Trustees, E.P.F.State Farms'
Corporation of India Ltd.,
14-15 farms Bhavan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi.
(Amicus Curie by Adv:Sri.Jagadishkumar)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER The 1st and 2nd opposite parties in CC.230/05 before the CDRF, Kannur are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the order dated:18.11.09 wherein and whereby they are under directions to give revised monthly pension to the complainants from the respective date of their original date of pension with 6% interest per annum for the arrears. The 3rd opposite party is under directions to refund Rs.1235/- to the 1st complainant and Rs.3244/- to the 2nd complainant with 6% interest from the respective dates of collection. All the opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost to each complainant.
2. The complainants have approached the Forum stating that they were former employees of the State Farming Corporation and that they have retired from service and consequent to their retirement though they have applied for the pension, the pension payment was delayed and further that when the pension was sanctioned it was much less when compared to other persons who retired during the period in which the complainants also retired. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in sanctioning the pension belatedly and also reducing the amounts, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to pay the eligible pension to the complainants from the respective dates to their eligibility with interest, compensation and costs.
3. The 1st opposite pay filed version contending that the Forum had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and that the 3rd opposite party was the authority to direct the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to sanction pension for receiving applications and also that the past service and actual service were taken into consideration while computing the pension to the complainants. It was submitted that as per 9-A of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 'service less than 6 months has to be ignored and only if the applicant has more than 6 months it can be considered as one year'. It was also submitted that the eligible pension, considering the past service and the actual service, was sanctioned to the applicants and there was no deficiency of service on their part. The 2nd opposite party supported the contentions taken by the 1st opposite party.
4. The 3rd opposite party filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer and that the necessary particulars of their service were forwarded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ie the 1st opposite party consequent to the retirement of the complainants and that the 3rd opposite party was unaware as to why the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner failed to disburse the actual pension to the complainants. Pleading that there was no deficiency on the part of the 3rd opposite party, the 3rd opposite party also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. The evidence consisted of the documents filed from both sides. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainants and the 1st complainant was examined as PW1. On the side of the opposite parties, Exts.B1 to B5 were marked. An official of the opposite parties was examined as DW1.
6. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellants and the amicus curiae appointed by the commission for and on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below directing the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to revise the monthly pension is without any basis. It is his very case that the Forum below has considered the service for less than 6 months also to one year and infact as per paragraph 9-A of the scheme it has to be ignored for computation of service. Relying on paragraph 9-A of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, the learned counsel argued that the fraction of service for less than 6 months shall be ignored and hence the calculation arrived at by the Forum below is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. He has also advanced the contention that 1st and 2nd opposite parties had sanctioned the pension as soon as they received the details from the 3rd opposite party and hence there was no delay in sanctioning the pension and the order directing to pay interest, compensation and cost is to be set aside is against the appellants/1st and 2nd opposite parties.
7. Adv.Jagadish Kumar, the amicus curie appointed by this commission has submitted before us that the Forum below had considered all these aspects in its correct perspective and has passed the order which is to be upheld. It is his case that explanation to paragraph 9-A specifically states that for consideration of actual service, notwithstanding that the period of service is less than a year, it shall be treated as a full year and the Forum below has correctly considered the period of service even if it is less than 6 months, into one year. It is also submitted by him that the appellants had taken inordinate time in sanctioning the pension and the Forum has correctly and just by awarded interest, compensation and costs.
8. On an appreciation of the arguments advanced by the learned counsels and also on perusing the records, we find that the appellants have a case that the period of service for less than 6 months is to be ignored and only if it is more than 6 months it can be considered as one year. On a perusal of the explanation to paragraph 9-A we find that in the case of employees who are employed seasonally, the period of service even if it is less than a year shall be treated as one year. The explanation to paragraph 9-A reads as follows:-
"In the case of employees employed seasonally in any establishment the period of actual service in any year, notwithstanding that such service is less than a year shall be treated as a full year".
9. It is to be construed that for computing actual service even if it is less than a year or less than 6 months it has to be computed as one year. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the 3rd complainant had only a period of 4 months after 16.11.1995 and hence no actual service can be given to the 3rd complainant. We find that in respect of past service and actual service in respect of other complainants, the calculation made by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties seems to be just and correct. But with regard to the 3rd complainant though the past service is treated as 15 years she has to be given one year for the actual service since she has 4 months after the Employees Provident Fund Scheme came into effect on 16.11.1995. Hence as per the calculations the 3rd complainant will be eligible to get Rs.333/- (500 x 16 ÷ 24). Hence, the 3rd complainant is entitled monthly pension at the rate of Rs.333/- from the date of her pension ie on 11.2.96 and the arrears will carry interest at 6% per annum from the above said date till payment.
10. The Forum below has also directed the 3rd opposite party to refund Rs.1,235/- to the 1st complainant and Rs.3244/- to the 2nd complainant with 6% interest from the respective date of collection. We do not find any cogent grounds to interfere with the said directions. However it is seen that all the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation to each complainants. We find that it was the 3rd opposite party who was responsible for giving directions to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to sanction the pension by furnishing the relevant details. Hence the direction to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation is directed to be paid by the 3rd opposite party only. The cost of Rs.500/- ordered by the Forum below is sustained.
In the result the appeal is allowed in part with the modifications that the amount of pension is revised only in respect of the 3rd complainant and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties are directed to pay to the 3rd complainant the monthly pension of Rs.333/- from 11.2.96 onwards and the arrears shall carry interest at 6% per annum from 11.2.96 till date of payment. The 3rd opposite party shall pay Rs.2000/- as compensation to each of the complainants. However the cost ordered by the Forum below is sustained. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Office is directed to forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum urgently.
S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
VL.
[ SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR] PRESIDING MEMBER