REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. D VICTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), have been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bellary, Karnataka, the Opposite Party in the Complaints, against a common order dated 17.06.2013, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeals No. 351, 352, 353 and 355 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the said Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein, questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 11.02.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bellary (for short "the District Forum") in Complaints No. 119 to 122 of 2012, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants. The District Forum, while partly allowing the said Complaints, had directed the Petitioner to re -fix the pension of all the Complainants, as per para 12(3)/12(4)(a)(b), as the case may be, read with para 10(2) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, by giving weightage of two years, and pay the pension from the date as applicable to each case and the balance pension within two months from the date of that order. In default the balance pension amount was to carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order till its realization. Litigation costs, quantified at ?1000/ -, were also directed to be paid to each of the Complainants.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petitions are that the Respondents/Complainants, who were the employees of the Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd., Hospet, were the members of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 as well as the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971. On introduction of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, w.e.f. 16.11.1995, they opted for the same and accordingly their earlier contributions were transferred to the 1995 Scheme, in which they contributed till their retirement. As per the new Scheme, the beneficiaries who would superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years or/and who had rendered 20 years' service, were to be given the two years weightage, while calculating their pensionable service. Since the Respondents/Complainants had rendered more than 20 years' service, they were entitled for the same. However, the Petitioner, while calculating the pension amount payable to them, failed to take into consideration their past and present service and consequently did not follow the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Scheme. Aggrieved, the Respondents filed their separate Complaints before the District Forum, praying for directions to the Petitioner to : (i) re -fix their pension in accordance with para 12 read with para 10 of the 1995 Scheme and pay the difference in pension; (ii) pay 18% interest per annum on the amount to be paid on account of re -fixation of pension; and (iii) pay ?10,000/ - as litigation expenses to each of the Complainants.

(3.) THE District Forum, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it by the parties as also going through the provisions of the 1995 Scheme, held that the Respondents/Complainants were entitled for the weightage of two years and accordingly, while partly allowing the Complaints, directed the Petitioner to re -fix their pension and pay pension and the balance amount due in the manner indicated above.