AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Late Sh. Malek Mohmed Karimbhai, husband of the complainant was employed with Gurajrat State Road Transport Corporation. He took voluntary retirement from service on 07.06.2003. Since his date of birth was 14.10.1956, his age at the time he took voluntary retirement was less than 50 years. Therefore, the pension in terms of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 was denied to him. He thereafter expired on 29.03.2010. The complainant applied for and was granted family pension as per the relevant provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. She also applied for the grant of pension which according to her was admissible to her husband under the Scheme. That having not been done, she approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
The complaint was resisted primarily on the ground that the deceased being less than 50 years old at the time he took voluntary retirement he was not entitled to any pension.
The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed the petitioner is before this Commission.
Clauses 12(7) and (8) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 are relevant for the purpose of this Revision Petition and read as under:-
(7) A member, if he so desires, may be allowed to draw an early 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 [four per cent] for every year the age falls short of 58 years.
(8) If a member ceases to be in employment by way of retirement or otherwise earlier than the date of superannuation from which pension can be drawn, the member may, on his option, either be paid pension as admissible under this Scheme on attaining the age exceeding 50 years or he may be issued a scheme certificate by the Commissioner indicating the pensionable service, the pensionable salary and the amount of pension due on the date of exit from the employment. If he/she is subsequently employed in an establishment coverable under this Scheme, his/her earlier service as per the scheme certificate shall be reckoned for pension alongwith the fresh spell of pensionable service. The member postponing the commencement of payment of pension under this paragraph shall also be entitled to additional relief sanctioned under this scheme from time to time.
Provided that if the member does not take up an employment coverable under this scheme, but dies before attaining the age of 58 years, the amount of contributions received in his case shall be converted into a monthly widow pension/children pension. The widow pension in such cases shall be calculated at the scale laid down in Table "C" and the children pension at 25 per cent thereof for each child (upto two). If there is no widow than orphan pension shall be payable at the rate of 75 per cent of the amount, which would have been payable as a widow pension subject to the provisions of paragraph 16."
It is evident from a bare perusal of the above-referred provisions that in order to be eligible for pension the employee must have crossed the age of 50 years before he takes retirement. Admittedly, the husband of the complainant was less than 50 years old when he took voluntary retirement on 07.06.2003. Therefore, he was not eligible for grant of regular pension from the date of his voluntary retirement.
In its order the District Forum has referred to some explanation in a book relied upon by the said Forum and held that under the explanation a person who had rendered 22 years of service was entitled to pension even if he was less than 50 years old on the date of retirement. I have carefully perused the scheme. No such explanation is found in the scheme. Even the Ld. Amicus Curiae is not able to show any such explanation in the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The consumer complaint is consequently dismissed with no orders as to costs.
The registry is directed to pay the fees of the amicus curiae, if not already paid, as per the guidelines adopted by this Commission.