THANKAPPAN Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSION
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Regional Provident Fund Commission
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE appellant is the opposite party in OP 109/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint has been dismissed.
(2.) IT is the case of the complainant that he is a cashew worker and retired from service on attaining 30 years service on superannuation on 1.1.2002. He was working under the second opposite party, a public sector undertaking. According to him he is a member of the Provident Fund organization from 1.10.1974. The second opposite party used to deduct the contribution. He became a member of EPS in 1995. The complainant was allowed only Rs. 325 for his service of 30 years. The complainant has sought for full pension.
(3.) THE first opposite party/Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner has filed version contending that on scrutinizing it was found that there was non -contributory period of 17 years 7 months and 14 days in his service. The above period can be regularized only by remitting the contribution with interest vide Para 9(b) of EPS 1995. It is contended that the complainant s past service is only 7 years and pensionable service is 5 years. The monthly pension eligible is Rs. 325 after deduction of Rs. 108 towards commutation surrender.
The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW.1 Exts. Pl and Dl to D5.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.