Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri K.Ranga Rao- Presiding Officer- Member - (Judicial).

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellants/opposite parties U/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this State Commission to set aside the impugned order dt.14.07.2020 passed in CC. No. 51/2013 of the District Forum, Nizamabad, and consequently to allow the appeal as prayed for.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants herein was opposite parties 1 and 2 and the Respondent No.1 were complainant and Respondents No.2 and 3 was opposite parties No.3 and 4 in the CC. No.51/2013 before the District Forum, Nizamabad.

3.The brief averments of complaint are as follows:-

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that, the complainant was appointed in the Corporation of Opposite party No.3 and 4 during the year 1977 as conductor. The complainant was retired from the service on 30-06- 2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. The complainant has opted for higher pension which was commenced from (W.EF) 16-11-1995. The complainant is being paid the lower pension amount of Rs.1720/- per month through opposite party No.2. Even though, the complainant is entitled to receive higher pension as per the Employees Provident Fund slip for the year2009-2010, issued to the complainant through the opposite party No.4.The complainant has approached the opposite parties on several times to receive higher pension on his actual wages, but they have not taken any initiative Consequently the complainant got issued the legal notice dated. 28-04-2012, though his counsel. Opposite party No.1 has given a reply notice dated 07-06-2012 by mentioning that the complainant has not opted for pension on higher wages and also mentioned that the pension was fixed and granted on statutory wage limit (i.e. Rs.6500/-). The opposite party No.8, who maintains the EPS contribution has given reply notice dated 25-06-2012, by mentioning that the EPS contribution of the complainant on higher wages was already submitted along with the higher pension options in the office of opposite party No.1 on 04-09-2007. After receiving reply notices from opposite party No.1 and 3, the complainant has approached the opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 has not taken any initiative to arrange to pay the pension on higher wages, and the acts of the opposite parties No.1 to 4 make the complainant mental and physical harassment by not paying pension amount on higher wages, and complainant is claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/-

The complainant is entitled to receive the eligible pension as follows:

(Pay + DA) x (No.of years service from 16-11-1995 till retirement)/70 + (pension to be paid up to 15-11-1995)=(Rs.11,070 +Rs.2,670) x 16/70+330/-=(Rs. 13,740 x 16)/70+ Rs.330/- Rs.3140/+Rs.330/-=Rs.3,470/- (Rupees three thousand four hundred and seventy only).

4. The complainant is entitled to receive pension of Rs.3,470/- P.M instead of Rs. 1,720/- P.M which is being paid at present. Consequently, the opposite parties are liable to pay the arrears of difference pension from July 2011 to till date i.e., October 2013, which is Rs.49,000/- (Rupees forty nine thousand only). (28months x difference pension of Rs.1750/-P.M) 49,000/-(Rupees forty nine thousand only)

Therefore the complainant prays the forum to direct the opposite parties to pay correct pension of Rs.3.470/- P.M from November 2013 and also to pay a arrears of the difference less paid pension of Rs. 49,000/- from 2011 to October 2013 and to pay Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment made to the complainant.

The opposite party No.1 filed its counter stating that, the issue of higher (021 wages has already been raised by the complainant through a legal notice and the same was duly clarified by issuing a reply. That option to contribute pay exceeding statutory limit is available to a member only under para 26 (6) of the Employee Provident Funds Scheme. 1952 which r