ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. B NAGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), have been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bellary, Karnataka, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints, against a common order dated 03.03.2014, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeals No. 13 to 16 of 2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein, questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 26.11.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bellary (for short "the District Forum") in Complaints No. 129, 130, 131 and 136 of 2013, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants. The District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaints, had directed the Petitioner to : (i) re -fix the pension of all the Complainants for the service rendered by them under "past service" and "actual service" separately, in accordance with the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, as applicable to individual Complainants, by giving weightage of two years; (ii) issue revised Pension Payment Order; (iii) pay pension from the date as applicable to each case; (iv) pay arrears of pension with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaints till realization; and (v) pay ?1000/ - towards compensation for deficiency in service alongwith ?1000/ - as litigation expenses to each of the Complainants.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petitions are that: the Respondents/Complainants, employees of different establishments, were the members of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971. On introduction of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, w.e.f. 16.11.1995, they opted for the same and accordingly their earlier contributions were transferred to the 1995 Scheme, in which they contributed till their retirement. As per the new Scheme, the monthly pension was to be calculated for two different periods separately, i.e. past service and present service. While the "past service" refers to the service rendered in the previous Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, the "present service" refers to the service rendered after the introduction of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. Under the 1995 Scheme, the beneficiaries who were to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years or/and had rendered 20 years' service, were to be given two years weightage, while calculating their pensionable service. Since the Respondents/Complainants had rendered more than 20 years service, they were entitled for the said weightage. However, the Petitioner, while calculating the pension amount payable to them, failed to take into consideration their past and present service and consequently did not follow the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Scheme. Aggrieved, the Respondents filed their separate Complaints before the District Forum, praying for directions to the Petitioner to : (i) revise the monthly pension by extending the minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service separately as well as weightage of two years; (ii) pay arrears alongwith 12% interest per annum; (iii) give annual relief from the year of retirement and to pay the arrears alongwith 12% interest per annum; (iv) continue to pay the monthly pension as per the Scheme in revised scale; and (v) pay ?10,000/ - towards litigation costs and compensation for the mental agony.

(3.) ON consideration of the evidence adduced before it by the parties and after going through the provisions of the 1971 Scheme and the 1995 Scheme, the District Forum held that the Respondents/Complainants were entitled to the re -fixation of their pension for the service rendered by them under "past service" and "actual service" separately, by extending 2 years weightage to their pensionable service and the Petitioner was liable to settle the pension accordingly. The District Forum also observed that non -application of the provisions while fixing the pension of the Respondents/ Complainants was against the provisions of the Scheme, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner. Accordingly, partly allowing the Complaints, the District Forum issued the afore -noted directions to the Petitioner.