PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER HUBLI Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to.as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No. 2295/2006 in favour of Krishna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent'). In his complaint before the District Forum, the Respondent/Complainant had stared that he had been working as a Cinema Operator at Vandana Talkies, K.R. Puram, Shimoga City and after his retirement from service on 1.10.2000, he applied to the Petitioner for settlement of his pension and provident fund by filing his claim in the prescribed Form No. 10. He also completed various formalities as prescribed by the Petitioner. However, Petitioner did not pay him his full claim on the grounds that in the nomination form furnished by him, his date of birth was shown 1.9.1940 whereas in his School Leaving Certificate and details supplied by his employer, his date of birth was shown as 25.4.1936. Petitioner paid him only Rs. 47,704, Respondent issued a legal notice in which he stated that his illiterate parents had wrongly given his date of birth as 25.4.1936 in his school whereas his actual date of birth was 1.9.1940 and therefore, Petitioner should settle his claim by treating his date of birth as 1.9.1940. However, despite this clarification which "was confirmed from the service records of the Respondent, Petitioner did not heed his request and Respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the Petitioner be directed to treat his date of birth as 1.9.1940 and settle his claim with regard to the full pension and provident fund amount due to him along with Rs. 15,000 as damages as well as litigation and other costs.

(2.) Petitioner denied the above allegations and stated that the case of the Respondent was settled strictly as per the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 which is relevant in the present case taking into account as per the Scheme the date of birth of the Respondent and his period of service during which there was contribution towards provident fund and pension. Since, two dates of birth were available in the instant case, Petitioner was fully justified in seeking further proof/clarification from the Respondent to decide regarding his actual date of birth. The Petitioner concluded that after due consideration it was decided was his School Certificate indicating his date of birth as 25.4.1936 was a more authentic and credible proof of his actual age. Even as per normal practice, it is the School Certificate which is usually taken as an authentic proof of age. Further, as per the documents made available by the Respondent his pension and provident fund contributions commenced in 1987 and no proof was provided of any earlier contribution prior to 1987. Taking into account these facts and treating his date of birth as 25.4.1936, the Respondent attained the age of superannuation in 1996 after rendering service of only 8 years and 7 months and not the required service of 10 years as per the Scheme. Under these circumstances, the claim of the Respondent was rightly settled at Rs. 47,704 and he was not entitled to more enhanced provident fund or pension amount based on 18 years of service as concluded by Respondent.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing the parties and considering the evidence filed before it allowed the complaint by accepting Respondent's date of birth as being 1.9.1940 and observing as follows: