REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SATYA NARAYAN PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby the petitioner herein seeks to assail the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the State Commission") in revision petition No. 106/2006. By way of the impugned order, the revision petition preferred against the orders dated 06.12.2005 and 01.05.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum") in Execution Petition No. 456/2003 has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/opposite party on the ground that his pension has been wrongly fixed as Rs.551/- per month instead of Rs. 835/- per month as per the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. It was the case of the complainant that he was a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 for more than 35 years, therefore, entitled for the maximum benefits under the scheme. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence, vide order dated 25.08.2003, the District Forum observed that since the complainant falls under the category of sub-paragrah-5 and attained the age of 55 years on 16.11.95, the date of birth being 29.04.1940 and fulfilled the condition of 24 years past service from 01.03.1971 to 15.11.1995, the minimum monthly pension shall be Rs. 335/- plus Rs. 500/- making the total of Rs. 835/- and not Rs. 551/-. Vide the same order, the opposite party was directed as follows:-

(3.) Thereafter, an application was filed for execution of the order dated 25.08.2003 passed by the District Forum. Vide order dated 06.12.2005, the District Forum held as follows:-