CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, SECL Vs. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, CMPF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition No.3297 of 2013 filed on 16/9/2013 challenges the impugned order of the learned Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur ('State Commission') dtd. 16/4/2013. Vide this order, the learned State Commission dismissed Appeal No.512 of 2012. This Appeal was filed against the order of the District Forum, Koriya, Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh ('District Forum') dtd. 16/8/2012. Vide this order, the District Forum allowed the Complaint with the following order:

(2.) As per report of the Registry, there is a delay of 61 days in filing of the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in IA/3276/2014 seeking condonation of delay, the same is allowed.

(3.) Briefly, the facts are that the complainant was an employee of the Petitioner in Pandopara colliery in the post of Assistant Grade-I and retired in that capacity on 30/11/2001. The case of the Complainant before District Forum was that at the time of his retirement the Employer had merely paid the amount of provident fund to the Complainant, but nothing was paid against deduction which was made by the employer in pension account nor the pension was assessed for every month payment. It has been averred that the employer was deducting from the salary of the complainant every month contribution towards provident fund as well as in the pension fund and that deduction against pension fund was required to be deposited with OP No.1 the CMPF in their account. The Complainant made several requests to the Petitioners for payment of pension but only evasive replies were given. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the employer and the Commissioner of the CMPF, a consumer complaint was filed by him before District Forum.