LAWS(NCD)-2014-3-30

REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, CMPF Vs. ANANT SETHI

Decided On March 13, 2014
Regional Commissioner, Cmpf Appellant
V/S
Anant Sethi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions, i.e., RP No. 3036/2012, Regional Commissioner, CMPF Dhanbad versus Anant Sethi, and RP No. 4370/2012, The Project Officer versus Anant Sethi & Anr.' have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 18.05.2012, passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 404/2009 "Anant Sethi versus The Regional Commissioner CMPF Dhanbad & Ors." vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 30.11.2009, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhanbad in consumer complaint no. 48/2009, dismissing the complaint in question was set aside. This single order shall dispose off the two revision petitions and a copy of the same may be placed on each file.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent Anant Sethi is a retired employee of M/s Bharat Cooking Coal Limited (BCCL), Bhowra (North) Colliery of E.J. area, Bhowra. He was a member of Coal Mines Provident Fund (CMPF) having CMPF account no. C/382840 and was also a member of Coal Mines Pension Scheme. The complainant was initially appointed in National Coal Development Corporation (NCDC) on 2.03.1962. Later on, various coal companies including the NCDC, merged into Coal India Limited, whereas various subsidiary companies were also formed, one of which is BCCL. The complainant joined BCCL on 11.09.69. According to the complainant, the employees of NCDC were asked to opt as to whether they wanted to remain governed by the NCDC terms and conditions, or they accepted the service conditions of the BCCL. The complainant submitted his option on 2.03.1970, saying that he wanted to remain governed by the service conditions of the NCDC. Upon retirement, the complainant was sanctioned pension @25% of last drawn wages. However, the complainant has stated in his complaint that in pursuance of some decision of the Supreme Court, a circular dated 17.04.2008 vide OM No. CIL/C54/(I)/Ex/NCDC PAN 840 dated 17.04.2008 of Coal India Limited and then a circular No. BCCL/Pension/2008/341 dated 18.04.2008 was issued by the BCCL, advising the concerned collieries / units to pay pension as per the decision of the Supreme Court. According to the complainant, he is entitled for payment of pension @50% of his basic pay. However, despite making a number of representations to the OPs, his pension was not revised. OP No. 2, General Manager, E.J. Area, Bhowra, Dhanabad had sent a letter to OP No. 1, i.e., Regional Commissioner, CMPF requesting him to revise the pension, but no action was taken by respondent no. 1. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question which was decided by the District Forum vide their order dated 30.11.2009, saying that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complaint was ordered to be dismissed. However, the complainant challenged this order by way of appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and the OPs were directed to refix his pension and pay the dues. It is against this order that the present revision petitions have been made.

(3.) In reply to the consumer complaint before the District Forum, the Regional Commissioner, CMPF, OP No. 1 stated that pension under NCWA VII had been settled and the revised pension came to Rs. _6,269/- per month and the arrears amounting to Rs. _20,417/- were sent to the complainant vide cheque dated 06.03.2009. Regarding the settlement of pension as per NCDC rules OP No. 1 stated that the pensioner was qualified for CMPF membership and he made contribution since March 1970 to 2.03.2003 as per CMPF Scheme 1948 and the BCCL had also deposited their share. The complainant applied for revision of CMPF accumulation and the same had been refunded to him. Further, the complainant was governed as per provisions of Coal Mines Pension Scheme 1998 and entitled for pension as per Para 10(2) of the Scheme. He had also given a declaration that he was covered under the said Scheme and also given option to that effect.