ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. NITYAMATBI GAFAR MANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 27 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Karnataka, through APFC, Delhi (North), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints under the Act, are directed against different orders, dated 28.10.2016, 05.12.2016 And 15.12.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 12/2015, 14/2015, 1457/2016, 1459/2016, 1460/2016, 1461/2016, 1465/2016, 1759/2016, 1760/2016, 1761/2016, 100/2014, 101/2014, 102/2014, 103/2014, 104/2014, 105/2014, 106/2014, 107/2014, 108/2014, 109/2014, 110/2014, 112/2014, 13/2015, 79/2015, 80/2015, 81/2015 And 667/2015. 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 28.11.2014, 18.12.2015, 27.04.2016, 29.08.2013, 28.11.2014, 19.12.2014 And 31.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Dharwad (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 207/2014, 206/2014, 273/2015, 269/2015, 272/2015, 271/2015, 268/2015, 314/2015, 315/2015, 316/2015, 76/2013, 72/2013, 73/2013, 74/2013, 75/2013, 77/2013, 78/2013, 79/2013, 81/2013, 82/2013, 83/2013, 85/2013, 205/2014, 232/2014, 233/2014, 234/2014 And 188/2015, 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), (b) And (c), 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, in some of the cases the District Forum had awarded compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation costs, quantified between Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-, in favour of each of the Complainants, with a default stipulation of payment of interest, ranging between 6% - 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 several orders but the issue involved in all the Complaints being similar, these Revis is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereunder are taken from the said Revision Petition.

(3.) The Complainant in the said Revision Petition was an employee of Sambar Beedi Factory, Nipani, District Belgaum since 1981. Being the employee of the said establishment, she became a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and was also allotted a PF Account Number by the Petitioner. In the year 1971, the Petitioner introduced the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, which came into force on 01.03.1971, and the Complainant was member of the said Scheme since 1981. On introduction of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, the Complainant opted for the same and, accordingly, contributed towards the same till her retirement on 31.10.2003. As per the new Scheme, the beneficiaries who were to 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 Complainant had rendered more than 20 years' service, she was entitled for the same. However, the Petitioner, while calculating the amount of pension payable to her, failed to take into consideration her past and present service and consequently did not follow the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Scheme. Aggrieved, the Complainant got issued a legal notice to the Petitioner, which evoked no response. In the said background and left with no other option, the Complainant preferred the Complaint before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein. More or less, same was the position with the other Complainants, who also preferred their respective Complaints before the District Forum.