.q~H~'1f4l1.l'P,{q ~ (~~iPf:m: a:l:ildlOl, 'LTRff~ EMPL.QYEES' PROVIDENT ·FUND ORGANISA1l0N . (Ministry of la'oour & EmJ>lovment. Govt of India) ~' LC-4/5/13/judgement/ ~ 7 !;'1'1 Date: 15.10.2015 1 5 CC'{ LO\~ To All Addl, Central P.F Commissioner(Zone) All Regional P.F Commissioners Regional Offices/Sub-Regional Offices Sub:- Forwarding of important judgement delivered by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 373/2011 titled as APFC, SRO, Kannur Vs. N. Damodaran Challenging the Date of Birth as per Form 2 and School Certificate/ESIC card- regarding. Sir, Please find enclosed herewith a copy of the judgement delivered by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 373/2011 titled as APFC, SRO, Kannur Vs. N. Damodaran in order dated 04.08.2015. 2. In the instant matter, the complainant filed the complaint before DCDRF regarding challenging the Date of Birth as per Form2 and School Certificate/ESIC card, which was allowed by DCDRF and further by State Commission. 3. Hon'ble National Commission has allowed the Revision Petition filed by the department without change in Date of Birth with the observation that" Sympathy with the old people and justice are two different things". 3. Therefore, this landmark order of Hon'ble NCDRC may be utilized while defending the similar cases. Encl:As Above ( .P.V rghese) Addl. Central P. F. Commissioner-1(Legal) r' NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 373 OF 2011 (From order dated 05.08.2010 in First Appeal No. 484/09 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Re.dressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram) lsistant Provident Fund Commissioner lnployees Provident Fund Organization. J!b Regional Office, IK. Complex, lJrt Road, Kannur, ltiruvananthapuram, "rough Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ~gal), Delhi Versus t N'Damodaran . Maniyambara House Mayan Road, Kannapuram Desam, Cherukunnu P.O. Kannur District ) The Secretary, Irinave Weavers Industrial Cooperative Society, . Innave P.O. . Cherukunnu P.O., Kannur District Thrissur-1 ... Respondents :EFORE: ." HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. ryJ. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR.-S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER iJr the Petitioner Mr. A.P. Sinha, Advocate with Mr. Ramesh Anand, EO (Legal) llr RespondentNo. 1 Mr.-M.K. BalaKrisnnarr-& - 'Mr. Subrata Das, Advocates "llr Respondent No.2 NEMO ~n~<~~\ I-I. !!!f!1 t :> \:Z>:~ii· Pronounced on: 4th August, 2015 ORDER JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Sh. N. Damodaran, complainant, was working with the Irinave Weavers Industrial Co-operative Society, Irinave, Kannur District- OP-2. " He was a member of Employees Provident Fund and M.P. Act 1952. He was also enrolled in Family Pension Fund Scheme 1971.. His family Pension Fund Membership was merged in the Scheme of Employees' Pension Scheme 1995w.e.f.16.11.199S. Tho '"""'0 .•.•..,...-1-: ..., .•..•,./••.•1·,... "/,..-1-.0 .•...f. birth ,..- 0.-1 OQ '-1r'lA-'! 2. t I I'" IJICi'~i·0 ,leu II-=> UClLv VI IJ ILII, a:::, v I. v. tj-,-I, submitted by him on 12.10.1998, i.e., about 8 years of his joining the service. His age was also shown as 51 years on 01.10.1990 at the time of joining of service in the form NO.9 under Employees' Provident Fund • Scheme 1952. According to Para NO.6 of EPS of 1995, the Employee Member can retain its Membership till he attains the age of 58 years or he avails the withdrawal benefit to which he is entitled under Para No. 14 or dies or-the pension -is-vested-in him, in terms-of Para NO.2. oLE.RS '1995. 3. The complainant applied for pensionary 'benefits in the prescribed . 1from 10 0 under the E.P.S. 1995 with the petitioner/OP and the same was ,/r~j~:dte~~.onthe qround that the Respondent No. 1 had "not ~.~-.$~;i~/\'\ 2 _. completed eligible service of 10 years or more on attaining age of 58 . years, under Para 12 of E.P.S. 1995. 4. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. He explained that his date of birth is io" June 1943 and he is entitled to receive the pension from ro" June 2001. The . complainant further contended that he became the member of Pension Scheme of 1971 on 01.02.1990 and as such the eligible service of the complainant comes to 11 years and as such he is entitled to get the pensionary benefits in accordance with Para No.1? oflhe E.P.:S,-1995. The complainant also got his date of birth corrected from 01.08.1941 to - ..•..;~ 10.06.1943. On the basis of the correction of the date of birth, the complainant became eligible to get the pension under E.P.S. 1995. 5. However, the case of the OPs is that the complainant attained the age of 58 years' on 31.07.1999 and he became ,the memb~r of petitioners for Provident Fund Scheme and its allied Scheme including Family Pension Fund (FPF) 1971 with effect from 01.12.1990 and on attaining the age of 58 years, his eliqible service comes to 8 years which is less than 10 years, therefore, .the "Respondent No. 1 is only entitled to withdrawal benefits in Para No. 14 of EPS 1995. 6. . Both the Fora below have placed reliance on the corrected age of ••••.•. I" -'--.- .... t. 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the complainant has invited our attention towards the School Certificate. This shows that the date of birth is 10.06.1943. The complainant studied upto Standard V and left the School on 01.06.1952 .. The District Forum held:- "Hence, it is quite nature that correction and all might have done with an improper accuracy of technicality. Any how or other Head Master came forward to enter in box to give evidence. Since he is the issuing authority, his evidence is so relevant . and cannot be rejected. Ext. B 1 the relevant page of admission register shows that there is overwriting on the number '3'. But it cannot at any rate .. conclude that, that overwriting was done as a matter of changing the number '1' into '3'. Moreover, .another 43 is put to just below the over written '3' which makes it clear that the very purpose of writing that additional 43 is ihtended to avoid the possible suspicion that may arise in future upon on the above over writing. The then officials took that much of precaution to protect the future of a student. But 4 ------~------.--~~----- unfortunately that wee-suspected. Non attestation alone cannot be taken as a ground to reject the genuinity of this record. Every educated person can , understand that this is a document subjected to inspection by Asst. Educational Officer. Rejection of an act done in good faith is only a cruel hearted attitude. The original register was produced before the Forum and compared with the copy of mark it as Ext. B 1. It could find that Ext. B 1 like other pages of - - ~ - -.::::------admission register seen signed by inspection officer. Opposite Party has no case that the admission register was not genuine. The evidence of PW1 Ext. B 1 and A5 proves that the date of birth of complainant is 10-06-1943. It can also been seen that the date of exit shown in the register is 01-06- 1954. He was admitted on 01-06-1949 at the age of 6 years t01S~ standard. After· completing Vth standard he left school when he was 11 years old. Ext. A 12 and the oral evidence of PW1 undoubtedly make it clear that the date of leaving was wrongly ---.------ .written as 01-06-:-1952 instead of 01.:.06-1954". 5 " 8. This kind of record is pitted against the authentic evidence. First cf all, form of Employee Provident Scheme 1952 where the complainant himself clearly, specifically and unequivocally mentioned his date of birth as 01.08.1941. This bears the signatures of the complainant himself dated 12.10.1998. Till the year 1998, the complainant was not aware of that mistake. The mistake came to his knowledge, out of blue, when he came to know that the above said benefit was going to elude him. This is an after-thought. The other records mentioned above, clearly show that the actual date of birth was 01.08.1941. The previous E.S: I. card issued to the wife of the complainant also shows that the date of birth is 01.08.1941. The said identity card was issued on '13·.09.2002. 9. We have perused. the above order passed by the District Forum. The above para itself goe~ to show that the corrected certificate has • been manipulated. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of the Head Master. He does not appear to be guileless witness. He has tried his best to help the complainant out of way. The above said over-writing is not contested by any person. Over-writing clearly goes to show that . the word 1 was changed into word 3. Sympathy with the old people and justice are two different things. Such like forgery or manipulation cannot be allowed, that too', at the eleventh hour. To understand an event, its . .'. 10. Consequently, we hereby set aside the order passed by the Fora below, accept the Revision Petition and dismiss the complaint. Sdf- ~····"·""······ •••••••••••••• ·•..•• 'I."" ••••• '2fJ) Sd/- •• •••• • •• •••••••••••••••••• •••••••••• A •• ' ••• Jr/Reserved/21 (DR. S.M. KANTIKAR ) - -M-El·V!l3~~'R-.. - .; - 7
1 5 CC'{ LO\~ To
![1 5 CC'{ LO\~ To](http://data.docslib.org/img/a7670181bd0028e34180fa577927fb96-1.webp)