BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD (ADDITIONAL BENCH)

FA. No.102/2021 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC. No.51/2013 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, NIZAMABAD Between :-

1.The Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization., “Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan’’

Regional Office, # 3-4-763, Barkatpura, Hyderabad- 500 027.

2.The Assistant Commissioner, Employees, Provident Fund Organization.

Regional Office, Nyalkal Road, Nizamabad – 503 001.

…..Appellants/Opposite parties.1 & 2.

And

1)G. Amrutha Reddy S/o. Ganga Reddy, Aged about 60 yrs R/o. Qrarter No.63, MIG-II, New NGO’s Colony, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.

…Respondent /Complainant.

2)The Account Officers, FPS, APSRTC, Bus Bhuvan, Musheerabad.

Hyderabad.

3) The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Depot-II, Nizamabad.

…Respondents/opposite parties 3 & 4.

Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. K.Raghu Ram Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri. A. Srinivas Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 3 : Sri. Gaurav Kwatra.

QUORUM: Hon’ble Sri K.Ranga Rao - Presiding Officer-

Member- (Judicial).

&

Hon’ble Sri V.V.SESHUBABU- Member ( Judicial).

WEDNESDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX *****

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 year

2009-2010, 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/- (Ru