REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SAYED SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 02.04.2012, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 156/2012, "The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner versus Sayed Sakhawat Hussain," vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order dated 01.11.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer, allowing the consumer complaint in question, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Sayed Sakhawat Hussain used to work at Sehkari Upbhokta Bhandar at Ajmer from where he took voluntary retirement on 31.07.2000. According to the complainant, regular deductions were made by his Organisation from his salary for his provident fund contribution which was deposited in account no. RJ 1244/15 with the petitioner/OP. The complainant alleged that he was not being paid his pension although he had approached the petitioner/OP many times and also sent a legal notice to them. The complainant/respondent was, therefore, suffering financial loss which caused him lot of mental harassment and agony. In reply before the District Forum, the petitioner stated that the complainant became a Member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 on 1.06.1967 and at that time, he disclosed his age as 35 years. According to this version he completed the age of 60 years in June 1992. However, in accordance with the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, implemented with effect from 16.11.95, he could get the pension only if he was below 58 years of age on 16.11.1995. It has further been stated that the complainant was a member of Family Pension Scheme 1971, according to which pension is only payable to the family in the case of death of a member. A sum of Rs. 44,016/- had already been paid to the complainant on 11.03.2002 and he was not entitled to receive any pension. The District Forum vide their order dated 1.11.2011 allowed the complaint saying that the petitioner/OP should pay the amount due to him since his voluntary retirement on 21.07.2000 with interest @9% p.a. within two months and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost. An appeal was filed against this order before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 2.04.2012. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(3.) At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the said order was a non-speaking and sketchy order and the merits of the case had not been discussed at all, while coming to conclusion. Learned counsel has further drawn our attention to the grounds of the revision petition saying that no option was admissible to the EPF organisation for payment of pension after attainment of 58 years of age or withdrawal of provident fund accumulation. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the State Commission order was in accordance with law.