ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER HUBLI Vs. SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition, the petitioner challenges order rendered by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 2483/2010. By the impugned order, the appeal was dismissed on account of non-condonation of delay of 289 days, which the appellant i.e. petitioner herein had committed. The respondent was in service of KSRTC as an artisan w.e.f. 17.7.1970. Admittedly, he retired on 31.8.1996 on attaining age of superannuation. He had completed more than 20 years' service. He was member of Employees Pension Scheme prevailing before 1995. He filed complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Dharwad vide Complaint Case No. 293/2009 alleging that weightage of two years was not given to him as required under the new Pension Scheme, which was applicable in 1995. The complaint was partly allowed with direction to revise his pension.

(2.) The order of the DF was passed on 8.9.2009. The petitioner filed appeal on 19.6.2010. Along with appeal, an application for condonation of the delay was filed. The application showed certain reasons, particularly, the delay in processing of the matter. The State Consumer Commission found that the delay was not explained to its satisfaction. Hence, the application was dismissed and consequently the appeal itself was dismissed.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the petition is most important because it will be applicable to many similar cases. He submits that interpretation of the expression "Pension service" as used in Section 2(v) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 is required to be properly done. The Counsel for the respondent points out that the delay in filing of the appeal before the State Commission is not duly explained and, therefore, dismissal of the delay condonation application as well as the appeal is legal and proper.