REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION vs SATHYA DEVAN

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI


REVISION PETITION NO. 2302 OF 2015

(Against the Order dated 14/01/2015 in Appeal No. 565/2013 of the State Commission Kerala)

1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
SRO, CHINNAKKADA,
KOLLAM

...........Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. SATHYA DEVAN
VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU MADANTHACODE,NELLIMUKKU P.O. KIZHIMATHICADU,
KOLLAM

...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT
	HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Puneet Garg, Advocate

For the Respondent :

For the Respondent : Mr. Murali Madanthacodu, Advocate for
Mr. G. Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Jishnu ML, Advocate

Dated : 30 Sep 2022

ORDER

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Provident Fund Organisation”), Opposite Party challenging the Order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 565 of 2013. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dated 11.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 178/2010 whereby, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to pay ₹905/- as monthly pension to the Complainants with arrears alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of payment together with cost of ₹1500/-.
The wife of the Respondent No. 1 has moved an Application bearing IA No. 9024 / 2022, seeking permission to implead legal heirs of Sathyadevan, Respondent No. 1, i.e., Nalini (wife), Shylaja (daughter) and Satheesh (son) as necessary parties in the matter since the Respondent No. 1 has expired and Death Certificate of Sathyadevan Respondent No. 1 has been filed alongwith the Application. For the reasons stated in IA No. 9024 / 2022, Application is allowed and the Legal Heirs of Sathyadevan, Respondent No.1 are hereby impleaded as Respondents in the instant case.

The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was working as a cashew worker on monthly wage basis in M/s. Raj Kumar Impex, Kareepra w.e.f. 01.06.1996 and retired from the service on 20.04.2008, i.e., after completing a service of 11 years 10 months and 19 days which as per rules was to be rounded to 12 years. He was contributing to Pension Fund for all the 12 years. His non-contributory service was 184 days only and accordingly his pensionable service is 11 years. The last pay drawn of the Complainant was ₹4288.88 but as per PPO issued by the Organisation his last pay was ₹3900/-. It is the case of the Complainant that although he is eligible for monthly pension of ₹674/- yet the Opposite Party sanctioned him monthly pension of ₹167/-. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation, the Complainant preferred a Complaint before the District Commission.

Upon notice, by filing its Written Version, the Provident Fund Organisation contested the Complaint on the ground that the as per record, the Complainant had joined the Pension Fund on 01.06.1996 and his date of birth was 21.04.1950. Therefore, his date of completion of 58 years was on 20.04.2008. The Complainant had a pensionable service of only 3 years 8 days from 01.01.1996 to 20.04.2008. But he had a non-contributory period of 8 years 10 months and 1 day of break. Hence, his pensionable service was rounded to 3 years. The Opposite Party filed additional affidavit stating that the revised pension of the Complainant was ₹226/- after taking into account his average wages as ₹5277/-. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Login now and unlock premium legal research