REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM Vs. KOCHIKA THEKKEMUKALI VEEDU

JUDGEMENT

(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.