ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. SHANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This set of nine Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints under the Act, is directed against two orders, both dated 28.07.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeals No. 86/2015, 87/2015, 88/2015, 91/2015, 92/2015, 99/2015, 262/2015, 263/2015 and 264/2015. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner against the two orders, dated 23.12.2014 and 20.02015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. C-185/2014, C-186/2014, C-187/2014, C-190/2014, C-191/2014, C-199/2014, C-249/2014, C-247/2014 and C-248/2014. By the said orders, while partly allowing the Complaints, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to re-fix the pension of the Complainants as per Rules 12(3)(b), 12(4)(b) and 12(5)(b) read with Rule 10(2) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, apart from giving benefit of their past service, from the date of retirement, and pay the balance amount to them within two months from the date of receipt of copy of its orders, with default stipulation of interest @ 9% per annum on the said amounts from the date of retirement till its realization. Further, the Petitioner was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1, 000/- and litigation costs, quantified at Rs. 1, 000/-, to the Complainants in each of the Complaints.

(2.) Since the Complaints involve a common issue and both the Forums below have decided the Complaints/Appeals on similar lines, though by two sets of orders, all these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, Revision Petition No. 2785 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereinafter are also taken from the same.

(3.) The husband of the Complainant in the said Revision Petition, namely, Eshwar Basidoni, was a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971. On introduction of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, w.e.f. 16.11.1995, he opted for the same. On attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from his service on 05.05.2007 and thereafter on 17.04.2012 he passed away. Subsequently, finding that the pension of Rs. 1, 320/- fixed by the Petitioner was not proper, inasmuch as past service of her husband was not taken into account while computing the family pension, though he had rendered more than 20 years of pensionable service, and was entitled to 2 years weightage under 1995 Scheme, the afore-noted Complaint(s) came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.