pension details

From,Shri. Divansab Nabisab Nadaf,H. No. 201/J/3 H(7)1,Azad Nagar,Bailhongal-591102,Dist: Belgaum.

To,The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner,Sub Regional Office,Hubli.

Sir, Subject: Regarding revision of monthly pension. Reference: PPO. No. KN/HBL/39820

-0-

WITH reference to the above subject I the under signed beg to submit that, I retired from service on 31/05/2006. I am eligible for monthly pension from 01/06/2006. Accordingly the pension is fixed and it is being paid to me w.e.f 01/06/2006.

Only during the month of May 2009 I came to know through one of my colleagues that there is an error in the calculation of pension fixed to us and we are being paid very less pension every month. The correct pension to me is shown under:

Past Service Pension: 2.720*170 =462.4. But minimum pension assured on attaining the age bellow 48 years as on 15.11.1995 with 24 Years of past service is Rs. 800/-. Further it is submitted that as per the paragraph No. 12(3) of the EP Scheme 1995 monthly pension shall be aggregate of pension for the period from 16/11/1995 and pension for the past service. Therefore my aggregate of pension for the period from 16/11/1995 and pension for past service are as follows

a. 6500*11/70 = 1021.42 b. 2.720*170 = 462.4 (Rs. 800/- as minimum assured under the scheme)

Totoal Rs. 1021+800= 1821/-

On account of valuations made in the year of 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000 the rate of pension increased as follows:

15-11-1996 4%31-03-1998 5.5%31-03-1999 4%31-03-2000 4%

Total ratio of increase of pension = 17.5% Therefore Rs. 1821+17.5% i.e. Rs. 318.6/-

= Rs. 2140/-…2.

-2-

MEMO OF CALCULATION

Paid amount Rs. 1482 p.m.Entitled amount Rs. 2140/- p.m.-----------------------------------------Difference amount Rs. 658/- p.m.

From 31-05-2006 to 30-04-2009 = 35 monthsRs. 658*35 months = Rs. 23,030/-Rs. 23030+12% i.e. Rs. 2764/-=Rs. 25,794/-

Kindly pay the arrears of pension and start paying revised pension of Rs.2140/- every month. Further I request you to pay the annual reliefs from the date of my retirement till this date as per the provisions of paragraph No. 32 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.

Since we depend only on the pension for our livelihood, I seek your kind co-operation for early payment of arrears along with interest and also payment of correct pension.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,Belgaum.Date: 02/05/2009

(D. N. Nadaf)

Shri. R.P. Koparde,Advocate,M.S. Complex, Ist Floor,Near Hotel Khyber, Ist Cross,Kaliamrai, BELGAUM. Cell No. 9972047811. Ref: BGM/DNN/Pension Date: 15/06/2009

( LEGAL NOTICE BY R.A.D )

To,The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner,Sub Regional Office,Hubli.

Sir,

Subject: Regarding revision of monthly pension. Reference: PPO. No. KN/HBL/ 39820

I am under the instructions of my client Shri. Divansab Nabisab Nadaf, H. No. 201/J/3 H(7)1, Azad Nagar, Bailhongal-591102, Dist: Belgaum issued this legal notice to you as under:

My client states that he retired from service on 31/05/2006 and only during the month of May 2009 he came to know through one of his colleagues that there is an error in the calculation of pension fixed to them and they are being paid very less pension every month. The correct pension to him is shown under:

Past Service Pension: 2.720*170 =462.4. But minimum pension assured on attaining the age bellow 48 years as on 15.11.1995 with 24 Years of past service is Rs. 800/-. Further it is submitted that as per the paragraph No. 12(3) of the EP Scheme 1995 monthly pension shall be aggregate of pension for the period from 16/11/1995 and pension for the past service. Therefore his aggregate of pension for the period from 16/11/1995 to till the date of retirement and pension for past service are as follows

a. 6500*11/70 = 1021.42 b. 2.720*170 = 462.4 (Rs.800/- as minimum assured under the scheme)

Total Rs.1021+800= 1821/-

On account of valuations made in the year of 1996, 1998, 1999 and 2000 the rate of pension increased as follows:

15-11-1996 4%31-03-1998 5.5%31-03-1999 4%31-03-2000 4%

Total ratio of increase of pension = 17.5% …2.

-2-

Therefore Rs. 1821+17.5% i.e. Rs. 318.6/- = Rs. 2140/-

MEMO OF CALCULATION

Paid amount Rs. 1482 p.m.Entitled amount Rs. 2140/- p.m.-----------------------------------------Difference amount Rs. 658/- p.m.

From 31-05-2006 to 31-05-2009 = 36 monthsRs. 658*36 months = Rs. 23,688/-Rs. 23688+12% i.e. Rs. 8528/-=Rs. 32,216/-

I hereby call upon you to pay the arrears as shown above and pay Rs.2140/- every month as pension. Further I request you to pay the annual reliefs from the date of my retirement till this date as per the provisions of paragraph No. 32 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995.

You are required to revise the monthly pension of my client and pay the arrears as shown above within two weeks from the date of receipt of this notice failing which my client will be constrain to approach the Court of law.

Hence this notice

Yours faithfully,

(R. P. Koparde) Advocate

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT AT: BAGALKOT.

Complaint No. 216 /2008.

1. Shri. Siddalingayya R.M S/O. Shivamurthayya ….Complainant.

V/S

1. The Divisional Contoller, NWKRTC Bagalkot Division & another ….Opponents.

WRITTEN ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.

HEREIN, the advocate for the complainant respectfully submits his written argument as follows;

1) The complainant old aged retired person filed this complaint after exhausting all the available remedies for getting his legally entitled monthly pension. The complainant claiming the monthly pension which is due from 31/05/2004.This is a complaint against two Governmental Organizations crowded with merciless persons who are wasting years together time in showing the fingers against each others.

2) 2. the Opponent No. 2 filed false affidavit before this Hon’ble District Forum and thereby trying to mislead this Hon’ble Forum. The same is evident from the contents of the reply to the legal notice given by the Opponent No. 2. The Opponent No. 2 stated in his reply to the legal notice that the form No. 13 in respect of the complainant were forwarded to the Sub Regionalm Offices of Hubli, Chikkamagalur and Bellary of his own EPF department for transfer of accounts. But surprisingly stated in paragraph No. 1 of his affidavit that his office has not aware whether the complainant applied for the transfer in the prescribed Form No. 13. Therefore it is very clear that the Opponent No. 2 has no intention to settle the pension of the Complainant and he is trying to mislead the court by filing false affidavit. The same may be considered seriously and put the Opponent No. 2 to strict proof of the same

3) The Opponent No. 2 contended that the Opponent No. 1 employer has not submitted the Form No. 10 D along with the Form No. 13 for the transfer of other pension accounts from various sub Regional Provident Fund Offices, hence he is not in a position to settle the claim of the complainant. At this juncture I would like to bring to the kind in respect of allotting of new account numbers

and transfer of accounts. The Opponents have authority neither to allot new pension account t number nor to transfer of accounts.

Para 23 of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 reads as follows:

(1) For the purpose of this scheme, where the number has been allotted or is allotted hereafter an account number under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 he shall retain the same account number.

(2) In the case of employees of the establishments exempted from the -Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 under sec. 17 of the Act, who are members of the Employees Family Pension Fund but the account number already allotted shall be retained by them.

(3) In the case of the employees of the establishments exempted from the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952, under section 17 of the Act, who are not members of the Employees Family Pension Fund but opt to become members of the Employees Pension Fund and in case of new employees of such establishments, fresh account numbers shall be allotted by the Commissioner”.

4).The Complainant appointed in the Opponent Corporation on June 1968 and since from the date of appointment he was a member of Family Pension scheme and after abolition of the scheme he continued as a member of new scheme (Employees Pension Scheme 1995). Clause 2 of the paragraph 23 of the scheme applicable to the State Transport Corporation. Therefore the question of allotment of new account number to the complainant does not arise as per the provisions of the scheme. It is further evident from the contents of the provisions of the Section 17-A of the Provident Fund and Misc. Act. The Sec 17 A says that transfer of account should be made only if change of employment from the establishment to which this Act applies to the establishment to which this act does not apply. It is impliedly shows that if both the establishments covered under the PF Act it is not necessary to create new account and the same account shall continue, even if change of employment. It is undisputed fact that the entire State Transport Corporation is one and same for the purpose of the pension scheme, because single number is allotted by the department of Opponent No. 2 to Opponent No. 1’s department. Opponent No. 2 has not disputed this point and Opponent No. 1 himself admitted this point in para No. 13 of his affidavit. The inspection charges are not paying by individual divisions like Bagalkot, Hubli, Hassan etc.of the Opponent No.1 ‘s department and it is bear by KSRTC Central Office Benglore alone on behalf of all 26 divisions. Therefore the question of creating new accounts in respect of the complainant does not arise. If any new accounts created in respect of the complaint by the opponents it is totally against to the Law. Further I would like to bring to the kind notice of this Hon”ble Authority that either the Opponent No. 1 nor the Opponent No. 2 have taken the consent of the complaint before allotting new account

number and no information also given to the complainant regarding allocation of new account number. only when the Opponent No 2 written letter to get transfer the account then only it came to know to the complainant. Further it is submitted that the Opponent No. 2 has made bare allegation that it is the duty of the complainant to get transfer accounts immediately after transfer from one Division to another Division, but he failed to state that under which Act and under which provision it is the duty of the complainant. Further, the opponent No. 2 has not produced any piece of document in support of his contention. Hence there is no substance in his contention.

5. Even if we assume that transfer of Complainant from one Division to another Division is amounting to change of employment from one establishment to another establishment then also the question of transfer of account does not arise as per the provisions of the Sec. 17 A of the PF & Misc Provision Act. Since the PF Act is applies to all the Divisions of KSRTC, the question of transfer of account does not arise. The Opponent No. 2 without any sanction of law and against the provisions of the Act and Scheme allotted new account numbers only for the convenience of his internal administrative convenience at the cost of Complaint employee. No internal procedures adopted by the Opponents for their own administrative convenience are binding on the Complainant.

6. Even though it is not the duty of the Complainant he has submitted Form No. 13 through the Opponent No. 1 to Opponent No. 2 only with an intention to settle the matter. It is also admitted by the Opponent No. 2 in his reply to the legal notice as regards submitting of form No. 13 and he intimated that the same were forwarded to the concern EPFO, SRO Offices of his own department. As admitted by the Opponent No. 2 himself in his reply to the legal notice Opponent has sent Form No. 13 to the concern SRO offices in the month of April 2007 itself. But the opponent failed to give details what efforts he has made to get transfer the accounts after sending the said Form No. 13 s to the concern offices of his own department.

7. The Opponent in his reply to the legal notice intimated that Annexure K from the SRO Hubli, Chikkamagalur and Bellary( in respect of three pension accounts) is not received and claim will be settled after receiving the Annexure K. But the Opponent No. 2 by filing the affidavit before this Hon’ble Authority singing a new song that, Annexure K in respect of seven pension account numbers is not received. It shows that the opponent No.2 creating new queries on each and every time with an intention to drag the matter for the reasons best know to him.

8. The opponent No. 2 has not disputed the contentions of the affidavit filed by the complainant.

9. it is submitted that neither the Opponent No. 1 nor the Opponent No. 2 have produced any documents in supporting of their contention. Mere filing of affidavit is not sufficient to prove the contention. Therefore the contentions raised by the opponents are not tenable in the eyes of law.

10. Opponents admitted that the complainant approached their offices several times in respect of settle of pension claim.

11. As held by the Hon;ble Supreme Court of India in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V/S Shiv Kumar Joshi which reported in (2000) I Supreme Court Cases 98, the EPF organization is covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and employee is a consumer upon becoming a member of the scheme. The copy of the said citation is enclosed herewith for the kind perusal of this Honble District Consumer Redressal Form.

12. It is not disputed fact that the complainant has entitled for the benefit of monthly pension. The Opponents have not intimated in writing to the complainant as he is not entitled for pension which he is claiming, hence the complaint is not barred by law of limitation. In this regard I would like to rely on the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble District Consumer Forum Bagalkot in Consumer Complainant No, 50/2007 dtd: 29/09/2007 Mulla V/S Divisional Controller and others in which it held that since the Opponent have not denied the entitlement of monthly pension the question of bar by limitation does not arise. The true copy of the said judgement is enclosed herewith for kind perusal of this Hon’ble District Consumer Redressal Form.

13. Therefore it is prayed that the complaint be allowed in full as claimed in the prayer column of the complaint.

Bagalkot

Date: 24-03-2009. Advocate for Complainant.




V/S


A F F I D V I T

HEREIN, I Shri. Siddalingayya s/o. Shivamurthayya age, 63 years, Occ: Nil, r/o H.No.154, Shanthiniketan, 7th cross, Bairidevarkoppa, Dharwad road, Hubli do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under as under –

1) I, was Divisional Mechanical Engineer in the Corporation of the No.1 and I had served for more than 36 years. I was a member of Employees Pension Scheme and my pension number is KN/989/W/2527. The monthly subscription was deducted by the Opponent No.1 in my monthly salary during the period of my service and it is intimated by the officials of the Opponent No.1 that the amount so deducted had been remitted to the office of the Opponent No.2. that, I retired from the services on 31/05/2004 and since from the date of the retirement I was roaming between the two offices of the Opponents for my monthly pension, but till now pension has not been settled by the Opponents. Despite lapse of four and half years from the date of the retirement, the Opponents slept over the matter by showing the fingers against each other.

2) It is submitted that, the Opponent No.1 was under obligation to submit the necessary records pertaining to me to the office of the Opponent No.2, as per the rules & regulations of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The Opponent No.2 was under obligation to ensure prompt payment of monthly pension. The Opponent No.2 has necessary powers under the EPF Scheme and rules framed there under to take action against the employers, including the Opponent No.1. But both the Opponents are without making any proper efforts and without exercising their powers simply wasting the time in correspondence and blaming each other. Therefore both the Opponents are equally and jointly liable for the same.

3) The opponent No. 2 had written letter bearing No.MN / PF / SRO/ RCH/ 2006/ 989/ W/ 2527/ 9468/ PRO/ 94 DTD. 5/04/2007 to the opponent No. 1 and forwarded a copy to me. In the said letter it was intimated that “the transfer of service from 989/ M/ 1022 & 6409,

KN/989/K/838, 989/D/3816 & 8587, 989/V/3917 AND 989/E/7091 are not attended. After attending transfer submit F 13 with break in service.” The said letter was addressed to the opponent No. 1 and no instruction was there to the complainant. However the I approached the opponent No. 1 submitted necessary forms and requested to take appropriate action to settle my pension claim, but the officials of the opponent No. 1 intimated that it is the duty of the pension office to get transfer the information from their other sub regional offices. Thereafter also I have approached both the opponents several times, but the officials of the Opponent No.1’s office replied that the Form No. 13 in respect of all accounts have already sent to the office of the Opponent No.2 and the officials of the Opponent No.2’s office intimated we have not received transfer of accounts and only after receipt of the same claim we be settled. It is respectfully submitted that for more than four and half years from the date of the retirement the complainant roaming between the two offices of the Opponent. It is submitted that, though the claimant had claimed his legally entitled money, the officials of the both the Opponents treated him like a beggar and respond irresponsibly when the claimant visited the said offices.

4) that, I have entitled to receive the monthly pension as per the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995, since from the date of my retirement i.e 31/05/2004, which works out approximately Rs. 1800/- per month. It is submitted that both the Opponents are equally and jointly liable for the loss of time of utilization of the pension which has fallen due on each month end, and thereby till now the Opponents have illegally detained Rs. 95400. As per the Para No, 17 A of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 all the claims shall be settled and benefit amount paid to the beneficiaries within 30 days from the date of its receipt, otherwise the pensioner is entitled for 12% p.a for the period of delay on the benefit amount. Therefore said the amount of Rs. 95400/- with interest of Rs. 50562/- is due to me.

5) I have made all the efforts in approaching repeatedly to the offices of the Opponents and ultimately issued a legal notice on 15/05/2008 by Register Post A.D to both the Opponents. But once again the Opponent No.2 has shown the fingers towards others, even though he himself has power to get the necessary records from the concern by exercising the powers vested with him. The opponentNo.1 has not bothered to reply to the legal notice as if it is not concerned to him.

6) The Opponents are playing blame game at the cost of the complainant and are causing huge loss to me physically, mentally and financially. It is respectfully submitted that, I am aged person and my health condition is also not good. Now I am not in a position to roaming between the offices of the Opponents and I am not in a position to spend money because I have already spent entire retiremental benefits for education of children and medical treatments for myself and for my wife. It is submitted that on account of no payment of monthly …3.

-3-

pension for more than four and half years I am suffering mentally, physically and financially.

7) I have never changed my employment & employer and I have appointed and retired in the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation only. There is no break of service. Since from the date of my appointment I was the member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme and after abolition of the said scheme I became the member of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. I have never given any application during the period of my service to create separate pension accounts. If any separate accounts created by the opponents without my knowledge and without my consent, it is totally against to the provisions of the law. If any separate accounts created by the opponents for their own internal administrative convenience, it is the responsibility of the opponents to get them transfer.

8) it is my humble prayer to this Hon’ble forum to allow my complaint and grant the relief prayed by me in the complaint. Further it is prayed to mark the documents as exhibits, which are produced by me.

Hence, this affidavit.

V E R I F I C A T I O N

Herein, I Shri. Siddalingayya R.M s/o. Shivamurthayya, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that the contents of the above said paragraphs are true and correct to the best of knowledge, belief and information and I believe the same to be true and correct.

Bagalkot.Date: /2009. Deponent.

I know the deponent.

Advocate.

PGA: SR: No. __________________/2009

BEFORE THE ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER P.G.ACT, BELGAUM, AT: BELGAUM.

1. Shri. Chandrashekharayya S/o. Sangayya Hiremath, Occu: Retd. Assistant Traffic Inspector, Age: 70 years, R/o Gudur S.C., Taluk: Hunagund, District: Bagalkot

…Petitioner

-Versus-

1. The Divisional Controller, N.W.K.R.T.C., Bagalkot Division Divisional Office, Bagalkot.

…Respondent===

Application for Condonation of delay under Rule 10 of The P.G.R. (Karnataka) 1973, R/W. sec. 151 of CPC.

Herein, the Advocate for the petitioner/ applicant submits as under:

For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying and the

documents filed in support of it, this Hon’ble Court is prayed to condone the

delay of any alleged to have been caused in preferring the claim petition and

be pleased to entertain and dispose off the petition on merits in the interest

of Justice and equity.

Place: BelgaumDate: -05-2009 (R.P. Koparde)

Advocate for Applicant/ Petitioner.




V/S


REPLY TO THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE OPPONENTS===

The Advocate on behalf of complainant begs to submit as under:

1. Both the opponents have not produced single piece of documents in

support of their contention. They have no basis for their arguments.

Before this Hon’ble Court also and at this stage also the opponents

playing blame game at the cost of the complainant and thereby shown

that they are not interested to settle the pension claim of the

complainant.

2. The opponent No. 2 filed false affidavit before this court. In the reply

to the Legal notice he himself has admitted that the form No. 13

submitted by the complainant were sent to the Sub-Regional offices of

his own department for transfer of account in the year of April-2007,

but in the affidavit filed before this court he stated that “He don’t

know whether the complainant applied for transfer of accounts in the

prescribed form No.13 or not.” In this respect no proper explanation

has been given by the opponent No.2 in his argument. Therefore the

same may be taken seriously and impose suitable action/ penalty

against the opponent No.2.

3. It is not disputed by the opponents that the complainant is entitled for

monthly pension and all the contributions are deducted from the salary

of the complainant during the time of his service. Therefore it is a

clear case of deficiency of service.

…2.

-2-

4. The opponent No.2 argued that Form-10D is not submitted by the

complainant through opponent No.1. Further he argued that Form No.

13 also not submitted through his employer/ opponent No.1. As

regards the Form No. 13 the opponent No.2 himself has admitted in

his reply to the Legal notice that the Form No. 13 submitted by the

complainant were sent to Sub Regional Office for transfer of

accounts. Further I would like to bring to the kind notice of this

Hon’ble authority that Form-10D is an application form for monthly

pension after attaining the age retirement. Form No. 13 is auxiliary

form. If it is necessary to get transfer account from other places form

No. 13 should be submitted along with the Form No.10D. Therefore

one can’t submit only Form No.13 without submitting 10D. Such

being the fact the opponent No.2 can’t say that he accepted only Form

No. 13 and sent the same to other Sub-Regional offices without

receipt of Form 10D. Hence the contention raised by the opponent

No.2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further it is submitted that

the Opponent No. 1 contended in his objection to the main petition,

affidavit and written argument that he has submitted the Form No. 10

D along with all the necessary documents to the office of the Opp.No.

2, but Opponent No. 2 has stated that he has not receipt of Form No.

10 D. Hence the complainant is totally confused. The contentions

raised by the opponent No. 1 are also not tenable in the eyes of law,

because they are not supported by any piece of documents.

5. Last week, another letter is received from opponent No.2 in which he

has raised different query to submit break in service statement. But

yesterday i.e. 01/04/2009 in his argument he has not raised such

query. It is totally confusing what is the requirement of opponent

No.2. Opponent No.2 going to raise new quarries on each and every

time. If he really intends to settle the claim he should inform his

requirement in a single letter. It is very much clear from his conduct

that still he is not intended to settle the pension claim of complainant.

…3.

-3-

6. Therefore it is prayed that the complaint be allowed in full as claimed

in the prayer column of the complaint.

Bagalkot

Date: 02-04-2009. Advocate for Complainant.

Shri. R.P.Koparde,Advocate,‘Renuka Nilaya’, II nd Floor, c/o. Ramesh Kudachi Ex-MLA,Badakal Galli, BELGAUM. Cell No. 9972047811. Ref: BGK/SRM/Pension Date: 15/05/2008.

( LEGAL NOTICE BY R.A.D )

.To,1. The Divisional Controller, N.W.KR.T.C Bagalkot Division, BAGALKOT.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund, RAICHUR.

Sirs,

SUBJECT: Non payment of Employees Pension of Shri. Siddalingayya R.M S/O Shivamurthayya retired Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Pension No.KN/989/.W- 2527/9468) as per Pension Scheme 1995.

I am under the instructions of my client Shri. Siddalingayya R.M S/O Shivamurthayya retired Divisional Mechanical Engineer issued this legal notice to you as under:

1. My client has worked in the Corporation of the first amongst you in different categories and retired from the services on 31/05/2004. After the date of the retirement despite my client having approached your above two offices, you have not been paid the monthly pension due from the dates of retirement. He visiting your above two offices for years together. Despite lapses of four years you are not able to finalize and settle the pension papers and the records pertaining to the retired employee. First amongst you have already taken the entire subscription amount from the salaries of my client, during the time of his services as per the Scheme and it is intimated by your officials that all the subscription amount so deducted is remitted to the office of the second amongst you. In spite of that the second amongst you has not ensure the prompt payment of pension till this day. Hence your act amounts to deficiency of service.

2. Please note that the first amongst you as an employer, liable to submit the necessary documents and the second amongst you being liable to ensure prompt payments of pension of my client and will be sued before the Hon”ble District Consumers Redressal Forum on account of your failure to settle the pension and failing to render service despite lapse of four years.

….2.-2-

You are required to reply this notice within two weeks from the date of receipt of this notice failing which my client will be constrained to approach the Court of law. Hence this notice.

Yours faithfully,

(R.P.Koparde) Advocate

pension details

Documents