REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION Vs. GEDELA RAJAPPADU SRIKAKULAM DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties are the appellants. They have filed the appeal challenging the order of the District Forum Vishakapatnam. in C.D.No. 19 of 2006.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated that the complainant was working as watchman in Sri Devi Mahal, Amadalavalasa of the opposite party no.4. The complainant is a contributor to the Provident fund with account number AP/24604/10. The clerk of the opposite party no.4 without informing the complainant furnished the age particulars of the complainant to the opposite parties no.1 to 3. On coming to know of the same the complainant submitted representation to the opposite party no.4 along with the medical certificate as per rule 9 of A.P.S.E. Act showing his age as 45 years to the opposite parties no.1to 3.. The complainant is an illiterate. The opposite party no.4 has submitted the same along with the nomination and declaration form . On 4-07-1996 the complainant made a complaint to the opposite party 3.On 9-08-1996 the opposite party no.3 addressed a letter to the opposite party no.1 to initiate necessary action. As there was no response, the complainant addressed another letter to the opposite party no.1 to take action. On intervention of the president of the complainants union, the opposite party no.1 advised the complainant to submit a notarized affidavit. Without considering any material the second opposite party has issued proceedings on 25-03-2002 stating that the alteration of the date of birth of the complaisant is not permissible. The action of the opposite party no.2 is not in accordance with law.

(3.) The opposite parties no.1to 3 resisted the claim by filing counter. It was contended that the complainant submitted representation dated 4-01-1996 for change of his age as 45 years stating that his age was wrongly recorded as 55 years. The complainant submitted another two representations on 7-01-1997. The complainant submitted another two representations on 15-10-1998 claiming his age as 47 years. The date of birth of the complainant recorded in the basic records is valid. Accordingly, the complainants age was taken as 10-03-1940 as declared by the complainant and endorsed by the opposite party no.4. The complainant submitted representation for change of the date of birth only after the inception of the Employees Pension Scheme,1995 since the date of birth of the member plays an important role in determining the eligibility to claim the pensionery benefits. According to the date of birth i.e., 10-03-1940 as declared by the complainant in form 2(R) dated -01-1996, the complainant is not eligible for pensionery benefits. There is no provision in the scheme to alter the date of birth after the scheme is commenced. In form No.9 . the complainant claimed his date of birth as 29-09-2939, as per F2datted 9-01-1996 as 10-03-1940,as per F2 dated 7-01-1997as 7-01-1952, as per F2 dated 15-10-1998 as 15-10-1958 and as per medical certificate as 7-02-1950.