State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.The Commissioner, Employees ... vs 1.G.Amrutha Reddy on 11 March, 2026
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
FA. No.102/2021
AGAINST ORDERS
IN
CC. No.51/2013
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, NIZAMABAD
Between :-
1.The Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization., "Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan'' Regional Office, # 3-4-763, Barkatpura, Hyderabad- 500 027.
2.The Assistant Commissioner, Employees, Provident Fund Organization.
Regional Office, Nyalkal Road, Nizamabad - 503 001.
.....Appellants/Opposite parties.1 & 2.
And
1)G. Amrutha Reddy S/o. Ganga Reddy, Aged about 60 yrs R/o. Qrarter No.63, MIG-II, New NGO's Colony, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.
...Respondent /Complainant.
2)The Account Officers, FPS, APSRTC, Bus Bhuvan, Musheerabad.
Hyderabad.
3) The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Depot-II, Nizamabad.
...Respondents/opposite parties 3 & 4.
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. K.Raghu Ram Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri. A. Srinivas Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 3 : Sri. Gaurav Kwatra.
QUORUM: Hon'ble Sri K.Ranga Rao - Presiding Officer-
Member- (Judicial).
& Hon'ble Sri V.V.SESHUBABU- Member ( Judicial).
WEDNESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX 2 ***** Order : (Per Hon'ble Sri K.Ranga Rao- Presiding Officer-
Member - (Judicial).
1. This appeal is filed by the Appellants/opposite parties U/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this State Commission to set aside the impugned order dt.14.07.2020 passed in CC. No. 51/2013 of the District Forum, Nizamabad, and consequently to allow the appeal as prayed for.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants herein was opposite parties 1 and 2 and the Respondent No.1 were complainant and Respondents No.2 and 3 was opposite parties No.3 and 4 in the CC. No.51/2013 before the District Forum, Nizamabad.
3.The brief averments of complaint are as follows:-
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that, the complainant was appointed in the Corporation of Opposite party No.3 and 4 during the year 1977 as conductor. The complainant was retired from the service on 30-06- 2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. The complainant has opted for higher pension which was commenced from (W.EF) 16-11-1995. The complainant is being paid the lower pension amount of Rs.1720/- per month through opposite party No.2. Even though, the complainant is entitled to receive higher pension as per the Employees Provident Fund slip for the year 2009-2010, issued to the complainant through the opposite party No.4.
The complainant has approached the opposite parties on several times to receive higher pension on his actual wages, but they have not taken any initiative Consequently the complainant got issued the legal notice dated. 28-04-2012, though his counsel. Opposite party No.1 has given a reply notice 3 dated 07-06-2012 by mentioning that the complainant has not opted for pension on higher wages and also mentioned that the pension was fixed and granted on statutory wage limit (i.e. Rs.6500/-). The opposite party No.8, who maintains the EPS contribution has given reply notice dated 25-06-2012, by mentioning that the EPS contribution of the complainant on higher wages was already submitted along with the higher pension options in the office of opposite party No.1 on 04-09-2007. After receiving reply notices from opposite party No.1 and 3, the complainant has approached the opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 has not taken any initiative to arrange to pay the pension on higher wages, and the acts of the opposite parties No.1 to 4 make the complainant mental and physical harassment by not paying pension amount on higher wages, and complainant is claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/-
The complainant is entitled to receive the eligible pension as follows:
(Pay + DA) x (No.of years service from 16-11-1995 till retirement)/70 + (pension to be paid up to 15-11-1995) =(Rs.11,070 +Rs.2,670) x 16/70+330/-
=(Rs. 13,740 x 16)/70+ Rs.330/- Rs.3140/+Rs.330/- =Rs.3,470/- (Rupees three thousand four hundred and seventy only).
4. The complainant is entitled to receive pension of Rs.3,470/- P.M instead of Rs. 1,720/- P.M which is being paid at present. Consequently, the opposite parties are liable to pay the arrears of difference pension from July 2011 to till date i.e., October 2013, which is Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only). (28months x difference pension of Rs.1750/-P.M) 49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only) 4 Therefore the complainant prays the forum to direct the opposite parties to pay correct pension of Rs.3.470/- P.M from November 2013 and also to pay a arrears of the difference less paid pension of Rs. 49,000/- from 2011 to October 2013 and to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment made to the complainant.
The opposite party No.1 filed its counter stating that, the issue of higher (021 wages has already been raised by the complainant through a legal notice and the same was duly clarified by issuing a reply. That option to contribute pay exceeding statutory limit is available to a member only under para 26 (6) of the Employee Provident Funds Scheme. 1952 which reads as follows.
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this paragraph an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, on the joint request in writing, of any employee of a factory or other establishment to which this scheme applies and his employer, enrol such employee as a member or allow him to contribute on more than (Rupees six thousand five hundred) of his pay per month if he is already a member of the fund and thereupon such employee shall be entitled to the benefits and shall be subject to the conditions of the fund, provided that the employer gives an undertaking in writing that he shall pay the administrative charges payable and shall comply with all statutory provisions in respect of such employee." Under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 there is no contribution payable separately. Under Para 3 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 from and out of the contributions payable by the employer in each month U/s 6 of the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, the employer shall remit a part of contribution representing 8.33% of the employee's pay to the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Therefore, it is only the employer's share of contribution payable under EPF scheme, 1952 that is being diverted to employee's Pension Scheme, 1995 to 5 the extent as aforesaid. The Provision in Para 11(3) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 for contributing on higher wages will apply to only such employees who have been contributing on higher wages under para 26(6) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, upon obtaining permission according from the Competent Authority/Regional PF Commissioner.
In the instant case, neither any option given nor any commitment made by the employer i.e. M/s APSRTC, as required under Para 26(6) of the EPF Scheme to contribute on higher wages, but higher wage contributions were made on their own. The payment of any such excess contributions which were not as per the provisions of the EPF & MP Act and Scheme framed there under will be considered as erroneous contributions which are to be refunded to the member and the pensionable salary to be restricted to the statutory limit accordingly the members pension claim has been processed for fixation of pension.
In view of the above, there is no lapse/wrong on the part of opposite party No.1 as the monthly pension was calculated as per the provisions of the Employee Provident Fund & MP Act, 1952. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint may please be closed/dismissed against the EPF organization.
5. The opposite party No.2 in its counter states that, the office of the opposite party No.1 has transferred the pension claim of Shri. G. Amrutha Reddy herein the complainant bearing EPS A/c. No. AP/HYD/295/73050 vide claim ID.No. AP/HYD/110600014087 dated. 28-09-2011 along with part-A & part-B of pension worksheet and input data sheet to the office of the opposite party No.2 for issue of pension payment order & payment of monthly member pension. The opposite party No.1 had recorded the pensionable salary as 6 Rs.6500/- at serial No.9 in Para B of pension worksheet during transfer of pension file to calculate & payment of monthly pension. Accordingly, the pension claim was settled on 25-10-2011 for monthly pension of Rs.1720/- in favour of Shri. G. Amrutha Reddy, Nizamabad vide pension payment order No. NZ/NZB/57152. The opposite party No.2 had requested the office of opposite Party No.1 to re-examine the case in respect of showing wages to resolve the grievance vide letter No. AP/RO/NZB/PDS/57152/2011/3802 dated. 20-01
12. However, the reply is not yet received.
In views of the above, there is no lapse/wrong on the part of opposite party No.2 as the monthly pension was calculated on the wages as given by the opposite party No.1 during the transfer of pension claim. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint may please be closed/dismissed against the opposite party No.2.
6. The opposite party No.4 filed its counter and the same is adopted by opposite party No.3 and stated that, the complainant was the employee of R.T.C. from 1977 to 30-06-2011 and he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. That the complainant opted for higher pension which was commenced from 16-11-1995 and being paid the lower pension amount of Rs. 1720/-. It is true that the complainant is entitled for higher pension. That on 28-01-2007 the complainant made an application authorizing the R.T.C to divert from Employees Contribution of Provident Fund beyond Rs.6500/- with effect from 01-01-2007. This opposite party accepted his proposal and recommended for affording necessary contribution from the employees share of provident fund holdings diverting to pension fund and the same is forwarded to the Regional P.F Commissioner vide letter dated 06-09-2007 with list of higher option forms of employees. This complainant serial number in the list is 7 2523. The opposite party submits here with letter of complainant and also letter addressed to the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Barkatpura. This opposite party deducted the amounts from the salary of complainant and credited with the opposite party No.1 regularly till the retirement of complainant.
Hence in view of above submissions the complainant is entitled for higher pension. As such appropriate orders may be passed.
7. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, to prove his case the Complainant filed their evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. One Sri. Balakrishna Nayak, Account Officer, EPFO, Regional Office, Nizamabad as RW1 filed evidence affidavit and got marked. Exs.B1 to B3 on behalf of opposite party 1 and 2. No documents marked on behalf of opposite parties 3 and 4.
8. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint in part as follows.
i. The opposite party 1 and 2, The commissioner, Employee Provident Fund organization, Hyderabad and The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional officer, Nizamabad are directed to recalculate and pay the Higher Pension Payable to the complainant w.e.f. November 2013 along with arrears of Higher Pension with 9% interest per annum to the complainant. ii. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay the arrears of the difference less paid Higher Pension from July 2011 to October 2013 with 9% interest per annum to the complainant.
iii. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees Three Thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant.
8iv. There is no order against opposite parties 3 and 4 in the circumstances of the case.
v. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are also further directed to comply above 1 to 3 directions within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
9. Aggrieved by the above the order of the District Forum, Nizamabad by the Appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 preferred the present appeal FA. No.102/2021 with the following grounds of appeal:-
(i)The order of the District Forum Nizamabad is contrary to law weight of evidence Probabilities of case.
(ii) The District Forum failed to consider that the complainant is not entitled for Higher wages, pension, the option to contribute on a pay exceeding statutory limit is available to a member only under Para 26 (6) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952. Thus the complainant is not entitled for Higher wages pension as claimed. Therefore, the District Forum ought not to have entertained the complaint as such the impugned order is liable o be set aside by this Hon'ble Commission.
(iii)The District Forum failed to observe that there is no deficiency of service on part of the appellant. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
(iv) The District Forum passed the impugned order mechanically without considering the statutory provisions and the material available on record as such the same is liable to be set aside.
10. With the above grounds the Appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 prayed the State Commission to set aside the impugned order of the District Forum, Nizamabad dt.14.07.2020 by made in CC 51/2013 and to allow the appeal as prayed for.
9
11. Heard arguments of Appellant and R1. The matter is coming with condition for arguments of R2 and R3 on 24.02.2026 the matter is passed over till 4 PM but there was no representation to R2 and R3. In view of the said condition their arguments are treated as heard and the appeal is reserved for orders.
12. The point that arises for consideration is:-
(i) Whether the impugned order dt.14.07.2020 passed by the District Forum, Nizamabad in CC 51/2013, suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified, or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief?
13. To decide the points for the consideration, we have carefully examined the whole material borne by the record and the same would manifest that there is no dispute the complainant had obtained for higher pension and according opposite parties 3 and 4 recommended for higher pension of the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2 as he is entitled for the same.
The issue in dispute is that by exceeding wages of the complainant had intimated to opposite party 1 and 2 after lapse of 6 months from the date of commencement of scheme which is gross negligence on the part of opposite parties 3 and 4. To prove his case the complainant his filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A6.
Ex.A1 is the copy of pay slip for the month of April 2011. Ex.A2 is the copy of EPF slip showing the EPS contribution ( higher) for the year 2009- 2013.
Ex.A3 is the copy of reply notice of R1 dt.07.06.2012. Ex.A4 is the copy of legal notice dt.28.4.2012.
Ex.A5 is the copy of reply notice of R3 dt.25.06.2012. Ex.A6 EPF input date sheet of R2 dt.22.09.2011.
10Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed the common evidence affidavit of Sri. Balakrishna Nayak who is the Account officer, EPFO, Regional Office, Nizamabad as Rw1 and relied upon Ex.B1 to B3, to support their case. Ex.B1 is the copy of Letter from opposite party No.2 to Opposite party no.3 dt.13.04.2006.
Ex.B2 is the copy of contribution card for members for the year 2006-2007. Ex.B3 is the copy of contribution card for members for the year 2007-2008 On behalf of opposite parties 3 and 4 Sri. Nalla Sayanna, Depot Manager, Depot No.II, Nizamabad filed his chief affidavit as Rw2 and no documents were marked on their behalf.
14. On a careful scrutiny of the averments and evidence affidavit and documents filed by the complainant show that it is the specific case of the complainant that he worked as conductor in APSRTC, opposite parties 3 and 4 herein from 1997-2011 and retired from service on 30.06.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. The complainant was a member of family pension scheme 1971 and his pension contribution was made by his employer w.e.f.21.09.1992. In the year 1995 the employee's pension scheme was started in place of Family Pension Scheme 1971 w.e.f.16-11-1995 (for short EPS 1995). As per Para No.11(3) of EPS 1995, the maximum pensionable salary is restricted to Rs.6,500/- per month and this pension scheme enables enrolled into the scheme to get monthly pension. The employee has to remit 8.33% from 12% employer contribution to the EPFO. The Scheme initially imposed ceiling of Rs.5,000/- salary to determine 8.33% contribution to the pension scheme, later enhanced to Rs.6,500/- However, over and above the ceiling on compulsory contribution, it is open to the employee to contribute more under the scheme based on the actual salary drawn by employee. 11
15. However, paragraph 26.6 of the provident Fund Scheme under Act,1952 envisage that the employer and employee have to make a joint request to the Employee Provident Fund Organization ( for short EPFO) Officer not below the rank of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner who is the nodal officer to whom such communication should be made expressing willingness to contribute more to pension scheme and on giving such consent if higher amount is contributed, the employee is entitled to receive higher monthly pension. It is the common ground of complainant as well as the opposite party No.3 and 4 Corporation that they have consented to contribute higher amount of pension, than the minimum amount prescribed and such contribution at the rate of 8.33% on actual salary was credited every month to the EPFO. As can be seen from the paragraph 2 of the counter of the opposite party No.4 EPFO was informed about willingness of the employee to contribute higher pension amount and acceptance by employer. It has also referred to letter where-under such consent and making of contribution was informed to EPFO. It is not disputed by the EPFO authorities that higher contribution at the rate of 8.33% on actual salary was made by the employer to EPFO as per Ex.A2 Copy of the EPF slip showing the EPS contribution (higher) dt.31.03.2010 for the financial year 2009-2013.
16. However, EFPO rejected the request of the complainant prior consent of the competent Authority as required by paragraph 26.6 was not obtained and therefore he is not entitled to claim higher pension as per Ex.B1.As per the Ex.A4 legal notice dt.28.4.2012 issued by complainant to opposite party No.1, the complainant requested opposite party no.1 to arrange to pay the Higher Pension with arrears within 15 days from the date of receipt of its and also submitted a copy of EPF Trust Slip and accordingly the slip complainant is entitled to receive Higher Pension from July 2011 itself. 12
As per the Ex.A3 dt.07-06-2012 the opposite party No.1 received the notice and directed its legal cell to clarify & respond but the complainant has not received any reply for the same. However opposite party No. 3 & 4 replied to the legal notice as per Ex.A5 dt.23-06-2012 stating that higher option of the complainant was forwarded to opposite party No.1 on 04-09-2007 itself and EPS contribution also permitted on higher wages from date of crossing of Rs.6,500/- salary of complainant and the same was informed to opposite party No.1. While forwarding EPS claim form 10 'D' to opposite party No.1, opposite parties 3 & 4 requested opposite party No. 1 to sanction pension on Higher Wages and the copy of reply notice was also sent to opposite party
17. The only ground on which the claim to pay higher monthly pension is negatived by opposite party No.1 & 2 on alleged non-compliance оf paragraph 26.6.6. But, the issue is no more res-integra as the same issue has fallen for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C.Gupta Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization & others and Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that cut-off date is not stipulated by the scheme and employee can contribute higher amount at any point of time and refusal on the ground that before cut-off date option was not exercised is not valid in law. Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that there is no cut-off date imposed under paragraph 11 (3) of the Pension Scheme and employee can exercise option to contribute more at any time. It is not in dispute that the employer was crediting amount at the rate of 8.33% on actual salary of employees. This was never objected to nor questioned by EPFO Having received the higher contribution, it is not open to EPFO to take hyper technical plea that there was none compliance of paragraph 26.6, to deny higher pensioner benefits to complainant.
13
18. It is categorical assertion of the opposite party No. 3 and 4, RTC that the entire information including higher contributions made based on the actual salary drawn by the complainant was already furnished to the EPFO. It is not disputed that 8.33% of actual salary was being credited to EPFO all along. As noted above, it was not objected by EPFO. Thus, it is not open to EPFO to raise plea of noncompliance of paragraph 26.6 at this distance of time and to deprive higher monthly pension drawable by the complainant. Pension Scheme 1995 is formulated by Government of India to enable employees working in the establishments where monthly pension system is not in vogue unlike in Government of India or State Government service and it enables the employees after termination of their service to draw some kind of monthly pension. It is a social welfare scheme to enable post retirement sustenance. Monthly pension is determined based on the amount accrued to the account of employee at the time of termination of service. It is not in dispute that the complainant herein have made higher contribution and the amount is accrued to the account of EPFO. Thus, complainant is entitled to draw higher pension based on the higher contribution made by him than the minimum amount required. Even assuming that there was no compliance of paragraph 26.6 the employees cannot be deprived of their higher pension on this hyper technical ground. Therefore, the Employees Provident Fund Organization is directed to work out the amount of higher pension payable to complainant based on the actual contribution made by him over and above ceiling of Rs.6,500/-.
19. In view of the above stated discussion we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is entitled to draw Higher Pension based on the Higher contribution made by him as such, the complaint filed by the complainant seeking Higher Pension from November 2013 and arrears of difference less paid pension for the pension from July 2011 to October 2013 is 14 liable to be allowed with 9% interest. The District Commission rightly allowed the same keeping mind of the laudable object of social legislation to protect the interest of consumers, liberal and purposive interpretation has to be placed on the scheme of the Act avoiding hyper technical approach. We further hold that the complainant is entitled the raise and monthly pension shall be drawn and paid to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the impugned order of the District Commission.
We have gone through the order of the District Commission and reliefs granted and upon examining of the same we are of the view that nothing is warranted to interfere the said order by this State Commission as such this appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
20. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District commission in all respects . There is no order as to costs.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission on 11.03.2026.
SD/- SD/-
----------------------------------------------
Presidingofficer MEMBER(J)
MEMBER(J)
Dated :11.03.2026.
UK