The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 letter through which his representation dated 4.2.2009 was rejected by the 1st respondent by declining his claim for monthly pension under the 'Employees Pension Fund Scheme 1995'. The petitioner is a member of the scheme from the date of its inception in the year 1995, since he was a member of the erstwhile Family Pension Scheme, 1971. The petitioner was an employee of the establishment, M/s South India Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd., Pettai, Tirunelveli from 27.11.1970 to 1.10.2001, having continous service of 30 years. On his request, pension particulars related to the petitioner under the scheme was transferred from the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent, since the petitioner is settled at Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P3 pension payment order was issued showing cessation of membership as on 1.10.2001, based on the superanuation by reckoning pensionable salary of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly monthly pension was sanctioned and disbursed at the rate of Rs.725/- as per Ext.P4. The petitioner represented before the 2nd respondent about the error in computation of monthly pension, contending that his last drawn pensionable salary was Rs.7,674/- up to the month of October 2001. It is evident from Exts.P5 and P6 that the 2nd respondent had addressed the 3rd respondent to look into the grievance. But the 3rd respondent failed to respond in any manner. Therefore the petitioner submitted a further representation to the 1st respondent on 4.2.2009. By virtue of Ext.P7 letter it is orderd that monthy pension of the petitioner is revised from Rs.725/- to Rs.758/- by taking pensionable salary as Rs.5,500/-. With respect to the grievance regarding wrong computation of past service for a period of 24 years prior to 1995, the 1st respondent answered that the benefit have already been considered for calculation. It is challenging the refusal to accept the past service for computation of monthly pension, this writ petiion is filed. 2. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 the details regarding the computation is given elaborately. Basically it is evident that there exists a dispute with respect to determination of the pensionable salary. According to the petitioner, the pensionable salary has to be fixed based on average monthly pay drawn during the contributory period of service in the span of 12 months preceeding the date of exit from the membership of the employees Pension Fund. The exist from employment as well as the exit from membership of the pension fund was on 7.11.2001. Whereas the respondents have determined the pensionable salary presuming the date of exit as 30.9.2001. This is because the respondents have taken the date of birth of the petitioner as 1.10.1943. It is evident that, while determining pensionable salary the respondents have adopted Rs.6,500/- for the period from 1.6.2001 to 30.9.2001 and Rs.5,000/- for the period from 1.10.2000 to 31.5.2001. Hence the average salary was computed as Rs.5,500/-. Referring to Ext.P8 the petitioner had specifically pointed out that, he had remitted the contribution for the month of October 2001 based on the maximum wage limit of Rs.6,500/-. Hence, according to the petitioner, the average monthly salary ought to have been taken at Rs.6,500/- for a period of 5 months from 1.6.2001 to 1.11.2001 and at Rs.5,000/- per month for the previous period of 7 months.
3. The crucial aspect in dispute is with respect to interpretation of paragraph 11 of the Scheme which deals with determination of pensionable salary. The said provision provides for determination by computing the average monthly pay drawn within the span of 12 months preceeding the date of exit from membership of the employees pension fund. Whether the petitioner continued in the membership of the employees pension fund during the month of October 2011 is to be decided. Another dispute is with respect to computation of benefits for the past period of service. According to the petitioner prior to 16.11.1995 the petitioner had completed 24 years of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn attention of this court to 'Table B' under paragraph 12, as it existed as on the date of eligibility for monthly pension. It is contended that with respect to the 24 years of past servicce the factor which ought to have been adopted is 9.390. But in the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the correct factor under 'Table B' which was adopted is 1.689 and on that basis the benefit of past service is computed. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents pointed out that as per paragraph 12(3) (c) the factor given in 'Table B' has to be adopted corresponding to the period between 16.11.1995 and the date of attainment of the age of 58, to arrive the past pensionable service. Therefore it is contended that the multiplication factor of 1.689 adopted in the case is true and correct. But the learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that going by paragraph 12(4)(a) and (b) the minimum pension payable under subsequent paragraphs of (2) and (3) are Rs.438/- and Rs.600/- respectively. Therefore it is contended that even going by the calculation factor, the petitioner is not sanctioned with minimum pension.
4. While considering the contentions enumerated as above this court is of the considered opinion that the matter has to be looked into by the 1st respondent referring to all such disputes and a fresh decision has to be taken after taking into consideration of all materials available and after affording opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore this court is of the opinion that a remand of the matter for taking a fresh decision would suffice to meet the ends of justice.
5. Hence this writ petition is hereby disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P7 on the basis of the above said contentions. The petitioner will forward a certified copy of this judgment along with a detailed resentation enumerating all his claims before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent shall on receipt of such representation shall consider all the claims of the petitioner in view of the disputes enumerated as above and shall take an appropriate decision with respect to the grievances voiced. Such decision shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation.
6. Needless to observe that the respondent shall continue payment of monthly pension to the petitioner at the rates admitted in Ext.P7, pending decision of the 1st respondent as directed above. However, such payment will be subject to outcome of the decision which will be rendered with respect to determination of the amount monthly pension, eligible from the date of retirement onwards.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE SKV