REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs T. PARAMESWARY

THE question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as to whether the complainant/respondent herein is entitled to monthly pension sanctioned by the appellant herein or she is entitled to the monthly pension at the rate determined by the lower Forum in O.P. No. 124/2005.

THE monthly pension sanctioned by the appellant to the complainant respondent was at the rate of Rs. 588 and lower Forum on the complaint made by the complainant/respondent who was dissatisfied with the monthly pension sanctioned interfered with that order and sanctioned monthly pension payable at the rate of Rs. 618. The undisputed facts are that the complainant/respondent was a member of Employees'' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and she became a member of Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995 which came into effect from 16.11.1995. The date of birth of complainant/respondent is 1.12.1942 and her monthly salary at the time of her retirement was Rs. 2,481. The monthly pension payable to the complainant is to be calculated on the basis of paragraphs 12 (2) and 12(4) of the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995 (for short the scheme).

An employee is entitled to retirement pension if he or she has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years.

IT is the common case of the parties that the complainant/respondent retired from the service of the erstwhile employer before attaining the age of 58 years and, therefore, she is entitled to retirement pension. Paragraphs 12 (2) and 12(4) are relevent for our present purpose for calculating the monthly pension payable to the complainant/respondent. Paragraph 12(2) reads as under : "In the case of a new entrant the amount of monthly ''Superannuation Pension'', or ''Retiring Pension'', as the case may be, shall be computed in accordance with the following factors namely : Monthly Member''s Pension= "Pensionable Salary Pensionable Service" 70

Paragraph 12 (4) reads as under : "In the case of an employee [who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971], and has attained the age of 48 years but less than 53 years on the 16th November, 1995, the superannuation/retirement pension shall be equal to the aggreged of- (a) pension as determined under Sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or Rs. 438 per month whichever is more; (b) past service benefits provided in Sub-paragraph (3) subject to a minimum of Rs. 600 per month provided the past service is 24 years."

Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefits taken together shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum of Rs. 325 per month. "In the case of an employee [who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971] and has attained the age of 48 years, but less than 53 years on the 16th November, 1995, the superannuation/retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of- (a) pension as determined under Sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or Rs. 438 per month whichever is more. (b) past service benefit as provided in Sub-paragraph (3) subject to a minimum of Rs. 600 per month provided the past service is 24 years. Provided further that if it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the past service benefits taken together shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum of Rs. 325 per month."

It is clear from the case pleaded by the parties that complainant retired from the service on 14.6.1997 and as she became a member of the 1995 scheme with effect from 16.11.1995 her service after her ceasing to be a member of Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 is to be computed as two years that is from 16.11.1995 to 14.6.1997. So under Paragraph 12(2), the pension payable is to be computed thus pensionable salary x pensionable service/70. Para 12(4) is attracted in the case of complainant/respondent on the ground that on 16.11.1995 that is on the date of coming into force of the 1995 scheme she was less than 53 years old (complainant''s date of birth is 1.12.1942). Her past service is 24 years (it is an undisputed fact). For computing the monthly pension entitled to the complainant we have to also bear in mind paragraph 12(7) and 12(7) reads as under : "A member, if he so desires, may be allowed to draw a monthly reduced pension from a date earlier than 58 years of age, but not earlier than 50 years of age. In such cases, the amount of pension shall be reduced at the rate of [three per cent for every year, the age falls short of 58 years]."

AS the complainant retired from service before attaining 58 years and as she has opted for reduced pension from a date earlier than 58 years for computing the monthly pension entitled to her reduction at the rate of 3% is to be made for every year till she attains 58 years. So in our view the lower Forum rightly reduced from the pension payable for the past period of service 10.5%. The pension payable for the past period of service of 24 years is to be computed on the basis of paragraph 12(4). The minimum pension payable if retired at the age of 58 years for the past service benefit is Rs. 600. So monthly pension payable to the complainant is to be arrived at by reducing 10.5% from Rs. 600 i.e., monthly pension payable to her after reducing 10.5% will be Rs. 537. The total monthly pension payable is Rs. 537 + Rs. 71 = Rs. 608. Thus it is clear from the materials on record that the monthly pension entitled to the complainant computed by the appellant herein is not correct and the monthly pension payable to the complainant is Rs. 608. From the materials on record it is clear that there was error in computing the monthly pension payable to the complainant by the appellant and we cannot consider that calculation error as a deficiency of service on the part of appellants and, therefore, we are of the view that the lower Forum''s order directing to pay interest at 7% is not sustainable. The complainant is entitled to monthly pension at the rate of Rs. 608. The appeal is hence dismissed holding that the monthly pension entitled to complainant is Rs. 608. Appeal dismissed.