Decided on June 26,2007

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum Appellant


T.M.Hassan Pillai, President - (1.)APPELLANT is the 2nd opposite party in O.P. 50/5 filed by the complainant for sanctioning to her pensionary benefits under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 (for short 1995 Scheme) and the lower Forum (CDRF, Kollam) accepted the case of the complainant that she is entitled to pensionary benefits on the ground that she had more than 10 years of service which entitled her to claim pensionary benefits. The operative portion of order reads as under: "The complaint is allowed directing the Ist opposite party to release all pensionary benefits to the complainant from 2.4.2000 calculating the services of the complainant in both accounts No. KR 1268/1490 and No. KR 1268/176. The pensionary benefits carry 9% interest from the date of order. There is no order as to compensation and cost. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of order."
(2.)THE order passed by the lower Forum is challenged before us on the ground that complainant received the provident fund benefits as early as in the year 1989 (13.7.1989) and ceased to be a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (for short 1952 scheme) on receiving the benefits in the year 1989. After the 1st opposite party became the owner of the cashew factory where the complainant was employed, she had again joined the 1952 Scheme in the year 1991 (on 1.4.1991) and the new account number assigned to her was 1268/1490. As she had joined the 1952 scheme only in the year 1991 and her date of birth is 1.4.1942 she was not eligible for pensionary benefit under 1995 Scheme on the ground that she had only a total service (both actual and past service) of less than 10 years and she had attained 58 years in the year 2000.
(3.)THE question that is to be considered in this appeal by us is as to whether the lower Forum is justified in passing the order directing the 2nd opposite party who is the appellant herein to sanction pensionary benefits holding that she is eligible for pension on the ground that her service is to be computed on the basis that she had joined the 1952 Scheme as early as in the year 1969.
It is clear from the termination notice issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party that her service was terminated by the 1st opposite party with effect from 31.12.2001 asserting that she had attained 58 years on 31.12.2001. That fact is evidenced by Ext. P1 produced by the complainant herself. Her form No. 10D application for sanctioning pension was rejected by the appellant and returned to her on the ground that on verification of various documents produced by her the office of the appellant confirmed that her year of birth is 1942 and as such she had attained 58 years as on 1.4.2000 and is not having the required minimum eligible service of 10 years for getting monthly pension. Ext. P2 was sent by the appellant rejecting complainant's claim for pensionary benefits on the above stated grounds.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.