ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. PANDURANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 55 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Karnataka, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints under the Act, are directed against different orders, all dated 05.12.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 7 - 9, 385 - 392 And 394 - 396 of 2015, and 63 - 78, 80 - 85, 87 - 90, 322 - 325, 327, 329 - 331, And 648 - 654 of 2016. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein, questioning the correctness and legality of the orders, dated 27.11.2014, 30.01.2015, 29.04.2015, 19.05.2015, 23.07.2015, and 28.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Dharwad (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 175 - 177, 254 - 259, 261, 262, 267, 273 And 274 of 2014 and 71 - 73, 75, 70, 13 - 23, 29 - 33, 38, 35, 36, 34, 37, 137 - 140, 124, 126, 127, 132, 170 - 173, 175, 176 And 194 of 2015, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants. By the said orders, while partly allowing the Complaints, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to re-fix the pension payable to the Complainants, as per Rule 12(3)(a) And (b), 12(4)(a) And (b), read with Rule 10(2) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, by giving weightage of two years and past service benefit from the date of their retirement, and pay the balance amount of pension due to each of them within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said orders. Additionally, the District Forum had awarded compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation costs, quantified at Rs.1000/-, in favour of each of the Complainants, with a default stipulation of payment of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order/retirement/commencement of pension, till realization, in the event of failure on the part of the Petitioner to pay the said amounts within the stipulated period.

(2.) Although the Forums below have decided the Complaints/Appeals by different orders but the issue involved in all the Complaints being similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of ready reference, the first bunch of three Revision Petitions No. 2649 - 2651 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereunder are also taken from the said Revision Petitions.

(3.) The Complainants were the employees of Mysore Kirloskar Ltd., Harihar and MMTC, Bangalore. When the Petitioner introduced the pension Scheme, viz., Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, the Complainants opted to join the said Scheme. On introduction of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, w.e.f. 15.11.1995, the Complainants became the members of the 1995 Scheme and, accordingly, contributed in both the Schemes 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 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 Complainants got issued legal notice to the Petitioner, which evoked no response. In the said background and left with no other option, the Complainants preferred their respective Complaints before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.