EPFO penalised for not revising pension

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EFFO), Chandigarh, to pay compensation of Rs 50,000 each to three subscribers for not revising their pension without any valid reasons.

The commission comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri, president, and Rajesh K Arya, member, also directed EPFO to revise and release the amount of pension after adjusting the amount of PF already paid to the complainants in the amount of pension payable to complainants, within a period of 45 days.

The commission further directed the organisation not to demand and charge any kind of interest on the amount to be adjusted while revising the pension of the complainants.

Krishan Murari and two other employees of Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, in a complaint filed before the commission said they were covered under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

The Act originally did not provide for any pension scheme and Section 6A was introduced to the Act by way of an amendment made in 1995, which provides pension for the employees. It provides that the pension fund was to comprise a deposit of 8.33% of the employer’s contribution towards PF corpus, as per the prevailing statute.

The paragraph 11 of the scheme defined the determination of pensionable salary to the employees according to which maximum pensionable salary was Rs 5,000 which was later enhanced to Rs 6,500.

They said the pensionable salary was increased to Rs 15,000 by a notification dated August 22, 2014, which was to be effective from September 1, 2014.

They said when they approached the Provident Fund Commissioner demanding revised pension, the same was refused by the PF Commissioner on the ground that there was a cut-off date to exercise the option for taking benefit under the revised pension scheme.

They had been requesting EPFO since 2017-18 to revise their pension as per the revised amendment in the Pension Act duly interpreted by the apex court but they are delaying the matter on one pretext and the other.

Alleging negligence, deficient rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of EPFO, they filed a complaint. On the other hand, the EPFO said they had raised some objections regarding wage detail submitted by the employer and issued the necessary direction for further action. As soon as a reply is received, the opposite parties will process the cases accordingly.

After hearing of the arguments, the commission also directed EPFO not to demand and charge any kind of interest on the amount to be adjusted while revising the pension of the complainants and to pay interest @12% to each of the complainant from the date of expiry of 30 days of the submission of applications as provided in Section 17-A of Employees Pension Scheme 1952.

The commission also directed the organisation to pay to each of the complainants compensation of 50,000 for causing mental agony and harassment and unfair trade practice and Rs 35,000 as cost of litigation.