ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SIRAJ ABDULSATAR RAMOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 28.6.2010 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 357/05- The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Siraj Abdulsatar Ramol; by which appeal was partly allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent was serving as Driver in the office of the opponent No. 2 and was recruited in the year 1980, and the complainant was driving on the route between Godhra to Ahmedabad. The complainant was suffering from serious disease like T.B. and he was not in a position to drive, as such the complainant had tendered his voluntary resignation on 29.10.98 to the opponent No. 2, the said application of voluntary resignation was approved by the opponent on 1.12.98. After approval of the application, the legal benefits available to the complainant such as Pension, Provident Fund, etc. dues instead of paying him from the date of approval of the resignation of the complainant by the opponents, i.e. from 1.12.1998, the opponents in this case paid to the complainant as per the old pay scales with effect from 11.9.2002 whereas the opponents ought to have paid to the complainant from 11.9.2002 instead of 1.12.98. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite Party No. 1 though present, did not file reply. Opposite Party No. 2 resisted complaint and submitted that opposite party No. 2 has already made payment of gratuity and provident fund amount and as far pension is concerned, it is the liability of Opposite Party No. 1. It was, further, submitted that complainant was appointed on 12.11.1979 and not in the year 1980. It was also submitted that on account of non-joinder of necessary parties, complaint is liable to be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing the parties, allowed complaint and directed Opposite Party No. 1 to grant pension from 1.12.98 to 11.9.2002 alongwith interest with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It was further observed that penalty and interest amount should be deducted from salary of defaulting officer. Appeal filed by Opposite Party No. 1 was partly allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order and direction to recover interest and penalty from defaulting clerk was modified and was left to the discretion of Opposite Party No. 1 against which this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) None appeared for respondent even after service and he was proceeded exparte,