Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Rakesh Saksena, President, Mr. Subhash Jain and Mr. S.D. Agarwal, Members
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION - Appellant
Versus
SAVITA - Respondent
First Appeal No. 987 of 2014
Decided on : 17-07-2017
Pension - Family Pension Scheme - Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971, Employees Pension Scheme 1995 - 6, 29, 16, 7 - The court discussed the provisions of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. It highlighted the differences between the two schemes, emphasizing that under the 1971 scheme, only one family member at a time could receive pension, while the 1995 scheme allowed for both the widow and two children to receive pension benefits. The court concluded that since the member died before the implementation of the 1995 scheme, the 1971 scheme was applicable, and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Employees Provident Fund Organisation.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, as the second daughter of a deceased member of the Employees Provident Fund, claimed entitlement to pension benefits under the Family Pension Scheme 1971 and 1995. The District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellant to pay pension benefits to the complainant along with arrears from the date of her father's death. The appellant appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 1971 scheme was applicable as the member died before the implementation of the 1995 scheme. It concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Employees Provident Fund Organisation and set aside the impugned order of the Forum, dismissing the complaint.
Issues: Interpretation of the provisions of the Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, and determination of entitlement to pension benefits for the deceased member's family members.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that since the member died before the implementation of the 1995 scheme, the 1971 scheme was applicable, and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Employees Provident Fund Organisation.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the Forum was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, resulting in the dismissal of the complaint. Parties were to bear their own costs.
ORDER
S.D. Agarwal, Member—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 7.5.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ujjain (For short 'Forum') in C.C. No. 79/2013 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant's father Shri Samrath Singh Kushwaha was employed in Indore Malwa United Mill and his EPF Account No. was MP/2/10030. He died on 9.4.1992. On his death pension benefit was given to his wife Smt. Leela Bai. Leela Bai died on 20.12.2005. After her death pension was stopped. On steps being taken by Babita, elder daughter of Smt. Leela Bai & Samrath Singh Kushwaha, her application was granted and pension was sanctioned vide PPO No. 6539. It is alleged that after the death of Leela Bai, pension ought to have been given to her two unmarried daughters. In spite of taking necessary steps and submission of necessary documents by the complainant, no action was taken and opposite party/appellant vide letter dated 22.9.2011 informed her that on PPO No. 6539 pension cannot be given to other daughters, because the name of the complainant was not mentioned in the family list and since the father of the complainant died on 9.4.1992, his two children cannot avail benefit jointly. Despite repeated applications and complaints made by her, no action was taken by the respondent. The complainant, thus, has filed the present complaint claiming that she, being a legal heir of the Member of PF, is entitled to get pension with arrears since death of her father.
3. The opposite party/appellant resisted the complaint before the District Forum stating that under the Family Pension Scheme 1971, pension was given to Smt. Leela Bai, wife of Samrath Singh Kushwaha. After death of Smt. Leela Bai on 20.12.2005, the application of her daughter Babita was accepted and pension was granted to her under Family Pension Scheme 1971. Under the scheme of 1971, pension could be given to only one person at a time and this fact was communicated to complainant by letter dated 22.9.2011 and 10.2.2012. Under the Family Pension Scheme of 1995, benefit of pension can be given to two children, but since Samrath Singh Kushwaha died on 9.4.1992 much before the implementation of the new pension scheme of 1995, this benefit cannot be given to complainant under the scheme of 1971. After death of Smt. Leela Bai on 20.12.2005, application of her daughter Babita was accepted and benefit of pension under the scheme of 1971 had already been given, thus the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
4. The Forum held that after death of Samrath Singh Kushwaha pension benefit was given to his wife Smt. Leela Bai and after her death pension benefit was given to her elder daughter Babita, whereas their two daughters were eligible to get pension, under the new Pension Scheme of 1995. The complainant being second daughter is also entitled to get pension benefit from the date of death of her father Samrath Singh Kushwaha i.e. 9.4.1992, hence allowed the complaint of the complainant/ respondent and directed the opposite party/ appellant to pay pension benefit to complainant along with arrears from the 9.4.1992 till she attained 25 years of age. Rs. 3,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as cost was also ordered to be paid to the complainant.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record of the District Forum.
6. Learned Counsel for appellant reiterated the same facts as have been raised in reply before the Forum and in appeal memo. Learned Counsel vehemently argued that pension was paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Member Samrath Singh Kushwaha as per Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971, wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the widow is entitled to get pension and on her death, the eldest surviving son will get benefit till he attains age of 21 years. Failing the above two conditions, pension is pa
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
