State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Assistant, Bhavisya Nidhi Aayukt vs Mrs. Mohanbai Soni on 31 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MADHYA PRADESH
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/16/1329
ASSISTANT, BHAVISYA NIDHI AAYUKT
PRESENT ADDRESS - BHAVISYA NIDHI OFFICE BHARATPURI, UJJAIN,MADHYA PRADESH.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
MRS. MOHANBAI SONI
PRESENT ADDRESS - BUS STAND KE PAAS, VILLAGE ZIRAN,MADHYA PRADESH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
ASSISTANT, BHAVISYA NIDHI AAYUKT
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MRS. MOHANBAI SONI
DATED: 31/12/2025
ORDER
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1329 OF 2016 (Arising out of order dated 09.08.2016 passed in C.C.No.341/2015 by District Commission, Ujjain) ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, BHARATPURI, UJJAIN (M.P) ... APPELLANT.
Versus
SMT. MOHANBAI SONI,
W/O LATE KAILASH SONI,
R/O NEAR BUS STAND, JHIRAN,
DISTRICT-NEEMUCH (M.P.) .... RESPONDENT.
BEFORE :
HON'BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Rajeev Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Esheeta Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER (Passed On 31.12.2025) Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:
The opposite party/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 09.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ujjain (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.341/2015 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.
2. In short, the facts of the case are that complainant's husband Kailash Soni was a driver in M. P. State Road Transport Corporation and he was terminated on 17.07.2000. Against which he approached the -2- Labour Court and the Court set-aside the order of termination and ordered for payment of 50% of back wages on 07.04.2006 however, before passing of the said order, the complainant's husband Kailash Soni passed away on 12.01.2004. Late Kailash Soni completed 15 years of continuous service till 17.07.2000 and 19 years of continuous service till the date of death i.e. 12.01.2004. It is alleged by the complainant that his PF No. MP/4044/4873 is still in existence and the complainant is a widow of 53 years of age and needs pension for maintenance but the opposite party deprived her from pension. The opposite party vide letter dated 10.09.2015 informed her that the complainant is not entitled to get any pension for which she is ready to deposit any additional amount towards contribution, if any. She therefore approached the District Commission seeking relief of monthly pension under Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995.
3. The opposite party in its reply before the District Commission resisted the complaint stating that the complainant is not a consumer as her late husband had already withdrawn PF amount Rs.48,180/- and the amount of Pension Rs.19,373/- towards final settlement from his PF Account No.MP/4044/4873 in June-2001. Therefore as per 6A of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 there is no eligibility of pension. As per order of the Labour Court, the rest amount deposited in her -3- husband's PF account with interest i.e. Rs.10,311/- had already been paid to the complainant on 29.01.2009. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any pension and in this regard, the complainant had already been informed vide letter dated 26.08.2013. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to calculate the amount of contribution of PF as per Employees Provident Fund Scheme,1995 and made available the calculation sheet to the complainant within one month. It is further directed that on deposition of contribution amount of PF as stated in calculation sheet by the complainant start the monthly pension of the complainant within one month.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principles of law. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that learned District Commission ignored the fact that Late Kailash Soni, husband of the complainant had already withdrawn the entire amount from his PF Account No. MP/4044/4873 in June-2001 i.e. before his death and before filing of complaint on 26.10.2015. Under these circumstances, the complainant does not come within the purview of 'consumer' as his PF account has already been finally settled. -4-
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the provident fund account of late husband of complainant remains active as the funds have not yet been disbursed to his wife and she has been deprived of monthly pension necessary for her maintenance. It is further argued that the complainant notified the opposite party that she does not wish to withdraw the accumulated amount instead sought to receive monthly pension. The complainant expressed willingness to repay any withdrawn pension amount and requested the payment of monthly pension. However, the opposite party informed her that she was not eligible for pension under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 whereas the PF account of her late husband remains active and has not been closed. She is entitled to get pension benefits in accordance with Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995. It is therefore prayed that the appeal filed by the opposite party/appellant be dismissed.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. As per material available on record Late Kailash Soni, husband of the complainant joined his services on 20.05.1985. His services were terminated on 17.07.2000 and he died on 12.01.2004. Challenging the said termination he approached Labour Court, Mandsaur. Labour Court Mandsaur by its order dated 05.04.2005 held the termination order is -5- illegal and set aside the same, which was modified by the appellate authority Industrial Court, M.P. Indore by order dated 07.04.2006 directing the opposite party- M.P.State Road Transport Corporation to pay 50% of the last salary.
9. The document P-2 indicates that in the year 2001 before his death Late Kailash Soni has withdrawn the amount deposited in his P. F. Account as final settlement.
10. Para 6A of Employees' Pension Scheme 1995 provides 6A. Retention of membership. - A member of the Employees' Pension Fund shall continue to be such member till he attains the age of 58 years or he avails the withdrawal benefit to which he is entitled under para 14 of the Scheme, or dies, or the pension is vested in him in terms of para 12 of the Scheme whichever is earlier. In the present case since the complainant's husband during his lifetime had already availed withdrawal benefit under Para 14 of the Scheme in the year 2001 i.e. before his death he or his wife is not entitled to get benefit of monthly pension.
11. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh Vs R.P.F.C. 1991 LIC 1572 held that As per Clause 72 of the scheme of the EPF Act, 1952 it is the liability of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to pay the amount standing due to the credit of the member and if the employer fails to pay his contribution towards the provident fund -6- then in that event on the strict interpretation of Clause 72 there is no liability of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to pay the amount which the employer in a given case has failed to pay.
12. Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat in Swastik Textile Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs Vrijibhai Mavjibhai Rathod 2008 CLR 953 (Guj. H.C.) held that "When the court awards backwages for the period employee was kept away from duty what the court does is to award damages. Thus the amount of damages or the compensation awarded would not constitute 'basic wages' as envisaged by the Act, the petitioner was under no statutory obligation to make statutory contribution of PF under the EPF Act, 1956.
13. Learned District Commission has ignored the aforesaid provision of the scheme as also the Act held that the complainant/respondent is a consumer of the opposite party/appellant EPF Commissioner whereas final settlement had already been made by Late Kailash Soni in the year 2001 i.e. before his death on 12.01.2004. Under these circumstances, after final settlement and withdrawal of full amount the deceased as well as the complainant do not fall under the category of consumer of opposite party/appellant.
14. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is found to be erroneous in respect to grant of pension to the complainant under the -7- Provident Fund Scheme to which she is not entitled. The impugned order is hereby set-aside.
13. Consequently, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. No order as to costs.
(Justice Sunita Yadav) (Dr. Monika Malik)
President Member
..................J
SUNITA YADAV
PRESIDENT
..................J
DR. MONIKA MALIK
MEMBER