State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gopal Chand Gautam And Others vs Employees' Provident Fund ... on 30 July, 2013
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA. (1) Consumer Complaint No.15/2012 Date of Presentation: 31.08.2012 Date of Decision: 30.07.2013 . (1) Sh. Gopal Chand Gautam, S/o Sh. Parmanand Gautam, Sr. D.B.A., H.P. State Pollution Control Board, HIM Parivesh, Phase-III, New Shimla-171009. (2) Sh. Bal Krishan S/o Sh. Raghuvir Dass, Asstt. Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Shimla. (3) Sh. B.S. Rana S/o Sh. S.R. Rana, Sr. Asstt. , HPSPCB, Parwanoo. (4) Smt. Kaushalya Devi W/o Sh. Babu Ram Shandil, Supdt.-II, HPSPCB, Shimla. (5) Miss Rama Gupta D/o Sh. Ganga Ram, Pvt. Secy, HPSPCB, Shimla. (6) Smt. Anju Negi W/o Sh. A.K. Ravi, Asstt. Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Shimla. (7) Sh. R.S. Rana S/o Sh. Dhani Ram Rana, Supdt.-II, HPSPCB, Shimla. (8) Sh. Dev Raj Sharma S/o Sh. Roshan Lal Sharma, MVO, HPSPCB, Shimla (9) Sh. Madan Lal S/o Sh. Bhagat Ram, Sr. Asstt. HPSPCB, Shimla. (10) Sh. Banku Ram S/o Sh. Dagu Ram, Daftri, HPSPCB, Shimla. (11) Sh. Som Dev S/o Sh. Jai Krishan Dutt, Clerk, HPSPCB, Shimla. (12) Sh. Prem Lal S/o Sh. Sita Ram, Chowkidar, HPSPCB, Shimla. (13) Sh. C. Joshi S/o Sh. M.L. Joshi, Sr. Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Baddi. (14) Sh. H.C. Sharma S/o Sh. D.R. Sharma, Pr. Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Parwanoo. (15) Sh. D.S. Sood S/o Sh. R.L. Sood, Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Shimla. (16) Sh. B.R. Dogra S/o Sh. Nokhu Ram, Sr. Asstt. HPSPCB, Shimla. (17) Sh. Ram Lal S/o Mansa Ram, Sr. Asstt. HPSPCB, Shimla. (18) Sh. Dandu Ram S/o Sh. Jatu Ram, Sr. Asstt. HPSPCB, Shimla. (19) Sh. D.K. Sharma S/o Sh. Moti Ram Sharma, Sr. Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Shimla. (20) Sh. S.K. Shandil S/o Sh. Kirpa Ram Shandil, Asstt. Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Baddi. (21) Smt. Lalita Gupta W/o Sh. K.L. Gupta. Supdt. - II, HPSPCB, Shimla. (22) Smt. Bhawna Sharma W/o V.D. Sharma, Sr. D.B.A. HPSPCB, Shimla. (23) Sh. Anup Vaidya S/o Sh. Bhup Singh Vaidya, Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Parwanoo. (24) Sh. T.B. Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Shimla. (25) Sh. Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Sahju Ram, Driver, HPSPCB, Shimla. (26) Sh. P.C. Gupta S/o Sh. B.D. Gupta, Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Baddi. (27) Sh. Rajinder Pal S/o Sh. Lal Chand, Lab Asstt. HPSPCB, Parwanoo. (28) Smt. Lalita Chauhan W/o Sh. G.C. Chauhan, Sr. Stenographer, HPSPCB, Shimla. (29) Sh. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Kanshi Ram, Helper, HPSPCB, Parwanoo. (30) Sh. Hitender Sharma S/o Sh. Padam Chand Sharma, Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Parwanoo. (31) Sh. Sanjeev Sharma S/o Sh. Rameshwar Dass, Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Shimla. (32) Sh. Dhani Ram S/o Sh. Shoba Ram, Sr. Asstt. HPSPCB, Shimla. (33) Sh. Jatinder Gupta S/o Sh. T.D. Gupta, Law Officer, HPSPCB, Shimla. (34) Sh. Kali Dass S/o Sh. Damodar Dass, Clerk, HPSPCB, Shimla. (35) Sh. Ram Swaroop S/o Sh. Mathu Ram, Helper, HPSPCB, Shimla. (36) Sh. Prem Pal Saklani S/o Sh. Gulaba Ram, Jr. Asstt. HPSPCB, Shimla. (37) Sh. Jagdish Chand S/o Sh. Chet Ram, Peon, HPSPCB, Shimla. (38) Smt. Kamlesh Rana W/o Sh. Hari Chand Rana, Jr. Asstt. HPSPCB, Shimla. (39) Sh. Khem Raj S/o Sh. Chet Ram, Peon, HPSPCB, Parwanoo. (40) Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Hem Ram, Helper, HPSPCB, Parwanoo. (41) Sh. Roop Chand S/o Sh. Surat Ram, Chowkidar, HPSPCB, Shimla. (42) Smt. Sheela Chauhan W/o Sh. Munshi Ram, Clerk, HPSPCB, Parwanoo. (43) Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Roshan Lal, Sr. Asstt., HPSPCB, Shimla. (44) Sh. Shiv Kumar Sharma S/o T. D. Sharma, Sr. Asstt., HPSPCB, Shimla. (45) Sh. Govind Ram S/o Sh. Salig Ram, Peon, HPSPCB, Shimla. (46) Sh. Megh Singh S/o Sh. Jaya Ram, Peon, HPSPCB, Shimla. (47) Sh. Vinod Kumar Chauhan, S/o Sh. Shankar Singh Chauhan, Sr. Asstt. HPSPCB, Shimla. (48) Smt. Vikrami Devi W/o Late Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Helper, HPSPCB, Parwanoo. (49) Sh. Sudama Ram S/o Sh. Devi Dass, Chowkidar, HPSPCB, Shimla. (50) Sh. Chaman Lal S/o Sh. Bhandaroo Ram, Jr. Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Baddi. (51) Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Khushi Ram, Jr. Asstt. HPSPCB, Shimla. (52) Smt. Mamta Rohal W/o Sh. Amit Rohal, Jr. Asstt. HPSPCB, Shimla. (53) Sh. Asha Ram S/o Sh. Ram Dittu, Driver, HPSPCB, Shimla. Complainants. Versus (1) Employees Provident Fund Organization, SDA Complex, Block No.34, Kasumpti, Shimla-171009. Through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. (2) H.P. State Pollution Control Board, HIM Parivesh, Phase-III, New Shimla-171009, Through its Member
Secretary.
Opposite Parties.
.
For the Complainants: Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate.
..
AND (2) Consumer Complaint No.16/2012 Date of Presentation: 20.09.2012 Date of Decision: 30.07.2013 .
(1) Sh. Manoj Chauhan S/o Sh. B.S. Chauhan, Sr. Environment Planner, H.P. State Pollution Control Board, HIM Parivesh, Phase-III, New Shimla-171009.
(2) Sh. Anil Sharma S/o Sh. Gawanu Ram, Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Jassur.
(3) Sh. A.K. Sharda S/o Sh. Tarsem Lal Sharda, Env. Engineer, HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib.
(4) Sh. Anant Ram S/o Sh. Polaroo Ram, Supdt. I, HPSPCB, Bilaspur.
(5) Sh. Brij Bhushan S/o Sh. Barfi Lal, Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Una.
(6) Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Kehar Singh, Sr. Lab Asstt. HPSPCB, Jassur.
(7) Sh. R.K. Nadda S/o Sh. Roop Lal, Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Kullu.
(8) Sh. Krishan Chand S/o Sh. Bahadur Singh, Chowkidar, HPSPCB, Sunder Nagar.
(9) Sh. S.K. Dhiman S/o Sh. Rattan Chand Dhiman, Asstt. Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Jassur.
(10) Sh. Amar Singh Rao S/o Sh. Janth Ram, Supdt-II, HPSPCB, Una.
(11) Sh. S. Kumar S/o Sh. Mahant Ram, Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib.
(12) Sh. A.K. Ravi S/o Sh. C.P. Ravi, Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Rampur.
(13) Smt. Indu Bala W/o Sh. R.M. Gupta, Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib.
(14) Sh. Parkash Chand S/o Sh. Krishan Ram, Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Sunder Nagar.
(15) Sh. Yadvinder Kumar S/o Sh. Mitter Dev, Clerk, HPSPCB, Kullu.
(16) Sh. Inderjit Singh S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, FA, HPSPCB, Shimla, H.P. (17) Sh. Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Gola Ram, Driver, HPSPCB, Shimla.
(18) Sh. Surjeet Singh S/o Sh. Fakir Chand, Helper, HPSPCB, Jassur.
(19) Smt. Madhu Soni W/o Sh. Surinder Kumar Soni, Sr. Proj. Consultant, HPSPCB, Shimla.
(20) Smt. Ram Pyari W/o Sh. Rulda Ram, Sweeper, HPSPCB, Shimla.
(21) Sh. Gurdyal Singh S/o Nathu Ram, Helper, HPSPCB, Una.
(22) Sh. Safi Muhamad S/o Sh. Azizo Deen, Clerk, HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib.
(23) Sh. Basti Ram S/o Sh. Sew Ram, FA, HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib.
(24) Sh. Surat Singh S/o Sh. Mohi Ram, FA, HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib.
(25) Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Radha Krishan, FA, HPSPCB, Shimla.
(26) Sh. Gopal Singh S/o Sh. Krishan Bahadur, Driver, FA, HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib.
(27) Sh. Tota Ram S/o Sh. Sukh Ram, FA, HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib.
(28) Sh. Surender Kumar S/o Sh. Khem Chand, Helper, HPSPCB, Jassur.
(29) Sh. Shyam Singh S/o Sh. Bansi Lal, Helper, HPSPCB, Jassur.
(30) Sh. Sudesh Kumar S/o Sh. Paras Ram, Helper, HPSPCB, Chamba.
(31) Sh. Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Chand, Helper, HPSPCB, Chamba.
(32) Sh. Chander Mani S/o Sh. Geeta Ram, Helper, HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib.
(33) Sh. Jiwan Ram S/o Sh. Kanshi Ram, Peon, HPSPCB, Una.
(34) Sh. Sant Ram Sharma S/o Sh. Jeet Ram, Sr. Asstt.
HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib.
(35) Sh. Dalip Singh S/o Sh. Jiwanu Ram, Jr. Asstt.
HPSPCB, Rampur.
(36) Sh. Ramakant Awasthi S/o Sh. Pritam Chand Sharma, Jr. Scientific Officer, HPSPCB, Jassur.
(37) Sh. Avtar Singh S/o Sh. Nand Lal, Lab Asstt. HPSPCB, Bilaspur.
(38) Sh. Kamal Kant S/o Sh. Sant Ram Madaiek, Lab Asstt. HPSPCB, Kullu.
(39) Sh. Shashi Shekhar S/o Sh. Tarni Prasad Yadav, Env. Planner, HPSPCB, Shimla.
(40) Sh. Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Jameet Singh, Helper, HPSPCB, Jassur.
(41) Sh. Atul Parmar S/o Sh. S.S. Parmar, Asstt. Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Parwanoo.
(42) Sh. Chandan Kumar Singh S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh, Asstt. Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Paonta Sahib, (43) Sh. Lalit Kumar S/o Sh. Surender Kumar Asstt. Env. Eng. HPSPCB, Rampur.
Complainants.
Versus (1) Employees Provident Fund Organization, SDA Complex, Block No.34, Kasumpti, Shimla-171009.
Through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
(2) H.P. State Pollution Control Board, HIM Parivesh, Phase-III, New Shimla-171009, Through its Member Secretary.
Opposite Parties.
.
Coram Honble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President Honble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member Honble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Complainants: Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate ..
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two complaints, particulars whereof are given in the title of this order. Facts are common in both the cases and issues raised are also the same.
2. Complainants in both the cases are employees of Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board. They have been in service of the said Board since or prior to the year 1995, when Employees Provident Fund Scheme was made applicable to the employees of Himachal Pradesh State Boards and Corporations. Initially, the scheme provided for contribution of money equivalent to 1.16% of the total wages of the employees, out of the employers provident fund contribution, towards the Pension Fund. In the year 1996, an amendment was introduced, according to which instead of 1.16%, money equivalent to 8.33% of the total wages was to be contributed by the employer towards pension fund. There was a proviso to this changed provision, which said that upper limit for making contribution towards Pension Fund would be 8.33% of `5,000/- and if the salary of an employee exceeded `5,000/- then the money could be equivalent to 8.33% of the total wages only if the employer and the employee opted for the same. Again there was a change in the year 2001 and upper limit of `5,000/- was raised to `6,500/-. However the proviso regarding higher contribution remained unchanged.
3. According to the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act and Schemes framed there under, an employer is supposed to contribute money equivalent to 12% of the salary of each employee and it is out of this amount that money equivalent to 8.33% of the salary is to go to the Pension Fund and the rest to the Employees Provident Fund. The entire money is required to be remitted to the Employees Provident Fund Organization, impleaded as opposite party No.1 in both the complaints. Breakup of money remitted towards Pension Fund and Employees Provident Fund is required to be indicated when remitting the money to the said Organization.
4. After the changes in the scheme, brought about in the years 1996 and 2001, employer of the complainants, impleaded as opposite party No.2, i.e. H.P. State Pollution Control Board (in both the complaints) had been contributing money equivalent to 12% of the total salary of the complainants towards Pension Fund and Provident Fund, but in the breakup conveyed to opposite party No.1, money contributed towards Provident Fund was indicated 8.33% of not the entire salary, but of `5,000/- after the amendment of 1996 and `6,500/- after the amendment of 2001.
5. Complainants case is that when by exercise of option, money equivalent to 8.33% of their entire salary, even though in excess of `5,000/- initially and `6,500/- subsequently could have been contributed towards Pension Fund, thereby enabling them to get higher amount of money by way of pension on their retirement, they were required to be apprised of their right to give an option whether they wanted the cap provided by the amendments to be adhered to, or the contribution towards the Pension Fund was to be made, irrespective of the amounts of cap but they never intimated about this option. This, according to them amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. They have sought issuance of a direction to opposite party No.1 to treat the contribution towards the Provident Fund to the extent of 8.33% of their total salary, ignoring the aforesaid caps, by transferring difference between the money already contributed towards Pension Fund and the money which was supposed to have been contributed, if the caps were not taken into account, from their provident funds accumulations. According to them, this will not cause any financial burden upon opposite party No.1, because contributions to the provident fund as also the pensionary fund are remitted to it and the entire money remains at its disposal.
6. Both the complaints are contested by opposite party No.1. One of the pleas raised in the reply is that the complaints are barred by limitation. It is stated that issue for contributing higher amount of money towards the Pension Fund, i.e. equivalent to 8.33% of the gross salaries of the complainants was raised by them through their Union in the year 2008 and the same year, opposite party No.1 had informed them (the complainants) through their employer that it was not possible to treat contribution towards Pension Fund equivalent to 8.33% of their salaries, with retrospective effect but the employees, who were yet to cross the limit of `6,500/- monthly wages were free to opt for contribution equivalent to 8.33% of their gross wages from the date(s) their wages exceeded `6,500/-, in case their employer also agreed to the same.
7. It is alleged that despite the rejection of their claim in the year 2008, complainants kept quiet for four years and filed the present complaints in the months of August and September 2012, respectively.
8. On merits, it is stated that the employer of the complainants did not opt for the contribution towards Pension Fund of money equivalent to 8.33% of the total salary (exceeding `6,500/-) and, therefore, the benefit of the scheme cannot be claimed by the complainants as the scheme provides that for making higher contribution of 8.33% of the total salary, both the employer and employee have to opt for and since the employer had been making contribution towards Pension Fund at the rate of 8.33% of the salary with caps of `5,000/- from 1996 and `6,500/- from 2001, it is implied that employer did not opt for making higher contribution, equivalent to 8.33% of the total salary.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
10. It is stated by the complainants in the complaints that their Union represented to opposite party No.2 through a letter dated 01.04.2008, Annexure C-4 that contribution towards their Pension Fund be increased, so that contribution was equivalent to 8.33% of their gross wages and that opposite party No.2 took up the matter with opposite party No.1 through letter dated 16.04.2008, copy Annexure C-5, in response to which opposite party No.1, vide letter dated 14.08.2008, copy Annexure C-6, informed that deduction of pension contribution cannot be permitted with retrospective effect, but those employees, whose wages had not been higher than `6,500/- by then could opt for higher contribution, when their wages crossed the limit of `6,500/-.
11. Now in August 2008, complainants, according to their own complaints stood informed that their contribution towards Pension Fund could not be increased. They did not take any steps for a period of four years to seek redressal of their grievance. They filed the complaints in August and September 2012, i.e. four years after the opposite party No.1 rejected their claim. Complaints are, thus, barred by time. There is no application for condonation of delay.
12. Learned counsel representing the complainants (in both the complaints) submits that this is a case of continuing wrong, because the complainants would be getting lesser pension, compared to their counterparts in other Boards/Corporations and, therefore, limitation is available to the complainants, even from today. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Changes in the scheme providing caps initially of `5,000/- and thereafter `6,500/- were made in the years 1996 and 2001, respectively. Complainants for getting benefit of higher amount of pension were supposed to have made contribution through their employer of higher amount of money from 1996 and 2001. In any case higher contribution was supposed to have been made at-least from the year 2008, when their prayer for adjusting higher contribution from their provident fund accumulations was rejected through communication, Annexure C-6. Contribution towards Pension Fund at higher rates has not been made since 1996, and 2001 and in any case from 2008. Thus, this cannot be said to be the case of continuing wrong, once the complainants were informed by the opposite party No.1 that their request for treatment of their contribution towards Pension Fund equivalent to 8.33% of their wages, by appropriating a part of their provident funds accumulation could not be acceded to.
13. In view of the above discussion, we hold that both the complaints are barred by time and the same are, therefore, dismissed.
14. This order shall be placed on the record of Consumer Case No.15/2012, titled Gopal Chand Gautam and others versus Employees Provident Fund Organization and another and its authenticated copy, on the record of Consumer Case No.16/2012, titled Manoj Chauhan and others versus Employees Provident Fund Organization and another.
15. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member July 30, 2013.
*dinesh* [1] Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?