ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.397/2019

ORDER DATED : 08.04.2026

(Against the order in C.C.No.114/2012 on the files of DCDRC, Kollam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANT:

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Parameswaran Pillai Nagar, Kollam

(by Adv. Pradeep Kumar C.M.)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Rukhiya Beevi, Charuvila Puthenveedu, Manakkara, Sasthamcotta, Kollam

2. The Managing Director, KSCDC Ltd., Cashew House, Mundakkal, Kollam

(by Adv. Kallada P. Kunjumon & Adv. Dinesh Sajan K.)

ORDER

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

The first opposite party in C.C.No.114/2012 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (for short, the District Commission), is the appellant.

2. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in granting monthly pension at a lesser rate than stipulated by the statute.

3. The complainant is a contributory to the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act whose account number is KR/1251/1469. The complainant has got continuous contributory service from 1973 onwards. She being a contributory to the different schemes, she had applied for the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, but a lesser pension by ignoring her service on contribution against the scheme was granted. According to her, she has got a total pensionable service of 41 years for the period from 1973 to 2011. She made contribution to the Family Pension Scheme in 1971 from her wages till 15.11.1995 without any break. She contributed to the fund for more than 20 years. So, she is eligible to get benefit of weightage of two years. Her past service is from 1973 to 15.11.1995, i.e., 23 years. Her actual service is from 16.11.1995 to 31.12.2010 with weightage of two years, i.e., 18 years. Thus, her total pensionable service is 41 years. Her past service pension as per para 12(3)(b) is fixed at Rs.561/-, which is sought to be revised as Rs.654/-, and the actual pension service as per para 12(3)(a) is fixed as Rs.654/- instead of Rs.1,321/-. Her payable pension per month was fixed as Rs.1,215/- instead of Rs.1,975/-.

4. The opposite party had extended pension at Rs.899/- from 01.06.2011 and reduced her contributory service from 01.07.2011 to 31.12.2011 with a view to curtail her pension. So, the complainant would seek for a direction to the opposite party to fix the monthly pension as Rs.1,215/- from January 2011 along with interest @12% per annum and also to award an interim relief to the extent of Rs.1,975/- up to monthly pension from January 2012. Compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- were also sought for.

5. The opposite party has filed written version with the following contentions:

The pension was sanctioned by the EPF authorities on a wrong report issued by the employer with regard to the length of service. By mistake the employer reported her service as 12 years which is lesser and hence the calculation of pension was done at the lesser rate. The employer was not made a party to this case. However, the opposite party would admit that the complainant was a member of EPF who joined the EPF scheme on 01.06.1973 and her date of birth is 01.06.1953. The complainant had attained 58 years on 31.05.2011. The employer was bound to remit 8.33% of wages towards the EPF contribution but he had shown the wages as Rs.1,000/- as on 16.11.1995 and Rs.5,412/- as wages on the date of exit. The complainant had 4281 days of non-contributory service. This period of break was not regularised. Her past service up to 15.11.1995 is 15 years, 6 months and 16 days. Her pensionable service is only 3 years, 9 months and 26 days which makes the eligible service of 21 years.

6. The allegation that the pension was sanctioned at a lesser rate ignoring the service, is incorrect. During her entire service, she had no case that con