Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, P.M and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION - Appellant
Versus
N. DAMODARAN AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Revision Petition No. 373 of 2011 (Appeal No. 484/2009).
Decided on : 04-08-2015
Pensionary Benefits - Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 - Para No. 12 - Summary: The court discussed the eligibility of the complainant for pensionary benefits under the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995, focusing on the correct date of birth and the completion of eligible service. The court rejected the corrected date of birth and emphasized the complainant's original declaration of date of birth as per the Employee Provident Scheme 1952, ultimately dismissing the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant sought pensionary benefits under the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995, claiming eligibility based on a corrected date of birth. The complaint was rejected by the OP, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the corrected date of birth and upheld the original declaration of date of birth as per the Employee Provident Scheme 1952, concluding that the complainant was not eligible for pensionary benefits under the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995.
Issues: The key issue revolved around the eligibility of the complainant for pensionary benefits under the Employees' Pension Scheme 1995, based on the correct date of birth and completion of eligible service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the original declaration of date of birth as per the Employee Provident Scheme 1952 and rejected the corrected date of birth, ultimately influencing the decision to dismiss the complaint.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order passed by the lower fora, accepted the Revision Petition, and dismissed the complaint.
ORDER
Mr. Justice J.M. Malik, (P.M) - Sh. N. Damodaran, complainant, was working with the Irinave Weavers Industrial Co-operative Society, Irinave, Kannur District-OP-2. He was a member of Employees Provident Fund and M.P. Act 1952. He was also enrolled in Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971. His family Pension Fund Membership was merged in the Scheme of Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 w.e.f. 16.11.1995.
2. The complainant mentioned his date of birth, as 01.08.1941, submitted by him on 12.10.1998, i.e., about 8 years of his joining the service. His age was also shown as 51 years on 01.10.1990 at the time of joining of service in the form No. 9 under Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952. According to Para No. 6 of EPS of 1995, the Employee Member can retain its Membership till he attains the age of 58 years or he avails the withdrawal benefit to which he is entitled under Para No. 14 or dies or the pension is vested in him in terms of Para No. 2 of EPS 1995.
3. The complainant applied for pensionary benefits in the prescribed from 10 D under the E.P.S. 1995 with the petitioner/OP and the same was rejected on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 had not completed eligible service of 10 years or more on attaining age of 58 years, under Para 12 of E.P.S. 1995.
4. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. He explained that his date of birth is 10th June 1943 and he is entitled to receive the pension from 10th June 2001. The complainant further contended that he became the member of Pension Scheme of 1971 on 01.02.1990 and as such the eligible service of the complainant comes to 11 years and as such he is entitled to get the pensionary benefits in accordance with Para No. 12 of the E.P.S. 1995. The complainant also got his date of birth corrected from 01.08.1941 to 10.06.1943. On the basis of the correction of the date of birth, the complainant became eligible to get the pension under E.P.S. 1995.
5. However, the case of the OPs is that the complainant attained the age of 58 years on 31.07.1999 and he became the member of petitioners for Provident Fund Scheme and its allied Scheme including Family Pension Fund (FPF) 1971 with effect from 01.12.1990 and on attaining the age of 58 years, his eligible service comes to 8 years which is less than 10 years, therefore, the Respondent No. 1 is only entitled to withdrawal benefits in Para No. 14 of EPS 1995.
6. Both the Fora below have placed reliance on the corrected age of the complainant, i.e, 10.06.1943 and granted the relief prayed for.
7. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the complainant has invited our attention towards the School Certificate. This shows that the date of birth is 10.06.1943. The complainant studied upto Standard V and left the School on 01.06.1952. The District Forum held:-
"Hence, it is quite nature that correction and all might have done with an improper accuracy of technicality. Any how or other Head Master came forward to enter in box to give evidence. Since he is the issuing authority, his evidence is so relevant and cannot be rejected. Ext. B1 the relevant page of admission register shows that there is overwriting on the number 3'. But it cannot at any rate conclude that, that overwriting was done as a matter of changing the number 1' into 3'. Moreover, another 43 is put to just below the over written 3' which makes it clear that the very purpose of writing that additional 43 is intended to avoid the possible suspicion that may arise in future upon on the above over writing. The then officials took that much of precaution to protect the future of a student. But unfortunately that was suspected. Non attestation alone cannot be taken as a ground to reject the genuinity of this record. Every educated person can understand that this is a document subjected to inspection by Asst. Educational Officer. Rejection of an act done in good faith is only a cruel hearted attitude. The original register was produced b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
