State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sahayak Bhavishya Nidhi Aayukat vs Moh. Kasim on 29 April, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MADHYA PRADESH
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/A/16/1350
SAHAYAK BHAVISHYA NIDHI AAYUKAT
PRESENT ADDRESS - BHARATPURI UJJAIN ,MADHYA PRADESH.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
MOH. KASIM
PRESENT ADDRESS - 7 MOLANA AAZAD MARG GANI NO 2 JANSAPURA UJJAIN ,MADHYA
PRADESH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
SAHAYAK BHAVISHYA NIDHI AAYUKAT
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
MOH. KASIM
DATED: 29/04/2026
ORDER
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1350 OF 2016 (Arising out of order dated 12.08.2016 passed in C.C.No.371/2014 by District Commission, Ujjain) ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, PROVIDENT FUND OFFICE, BHARATPURI, UJJAIN (M.P) ... APPELLANT.
Versus DECEASED MOHAMMAD QASIM THROUGH LR SMT. MEHRUNISA W/O LATE MOHAMMAD QASIM, R/O WARD NO.44, KASAI MANDI, NEAR HOUSE OF KAMA PAHALWAN, RATLAM (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. Sambhavna Rajput, learned counsel for the respondent.
ORDER (Passed On 29.04.2026) Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:
The opposite party/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ujjain (for short 'District Commission') in C.C.No.371/2014 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.
2. In short, the facts of the case are that complainant Mohammad Qasim (who died during pendency of appeal) was appointed in Vinod Mill in the year 1967 at the post of Weaver and worked with the factory till the -2- closure of the factory. He was a member of Provident Fund having PF Account No. MP/11A/6983 later converted into PF Account No. MP/11/1876. It is further submitted that he being a member of Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 and New Employees Pension Scheme 1995 became eligible for monthly pension and on completion of 50 years of age he filed an application under 10-D for getting monthly pension under New Employees Pension Scheme 1995, however, the opposite party vide order dated 21.09.2012 disallowed his application stating that he is not entitled to get pension. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party has filed a complaint before the District Commission.
3. The opposite party in its reply before the District Commission resisted the complaint stating that the complainant is not a consumer as he had already withdrawn PF amount from his PF Account No.MP/11/1876 in the year 1996-1997. Therefore as per provisions of para 6A of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 on getting withdrawal benefit, there is no eligibility of getting pension. The complainant had already been informed in this regard vide letter dated 26.02.2010 and 21.09.2012. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party-PF Commissioner that If the entire amount received by -3- the complainant from the opposite party is returned along with interest within a reasonable time from the date of receipt of the calculation sheet, then the opposite party shall grant the complainant the benefit of monthly pension under the Employees' Monthly Pension Scheme, 1995. It is further directed that the calculation sheet of the amount to be deposited by the complainant shall be provided by the opposite party to the complainant within one month from the date of the order. Costs of Rs.1,000/- is also directed to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant.
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 complainant Late Mohammad Qasim, the husband of the present respondent had already withdrawn the entire amount from his PF Account No. MP/11/1876 in 1996-1997 i.e. much before filing of complaint on 15.10.2014. Under these circumstances, the deceased complainant or his wife does not come within the purview of 'consumer' as his PF account has already been finally settled.
6. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs President, Rajasthan Roadways Union & Another AIR 2012 SC 569, decision of Hon'ble -4- National Commission in Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Amritlal Sharma & Another decided on 02.03.2016, Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and others 2005 LLR 349 (Allahabad) and a decision of this Commission in First Appeal No.1329/2016 (Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Mohan Bai) decided on 31.12.2025 in support of his contentions.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent argued that the provident fund account of late husband of respondent 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 he was ready to deposit the amount with interest as per calculation sheet to be provided by the opposite party in order to get benefit of monthly pension. At present the complainant's wife/respondent expressed her willingness to repay any withdrawn pension amount and requested the payment of monthly pension. 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.
8. Heard and perused the record.
-5-
9. As per material available on record complainant Mohammad Qasim, the husband of the respondent joined his services in the year 1967 and was a member of Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971. The letter dated 21.09.2012 clearly states that when the membership of the complainant came to an end between 01.04.1993 to 15.11.1995 under the Employees Pension Scheme 1971 he was given an opportunity under para 7 for option but he failed to give option and the document filed on record indicates that on 24.01.1997 the complainant Mohammad Qasim has obtained withdrawal benefit and has withdrawn the amount deposited in his P. F. Account as final settlement. Therefore on getting withdrawal benefit, his membership came to an end and he was not entitled to get benefit of pension or his wife/the present respondent to get benefit of family pension as per para 6A of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995.
6A of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 is as under:
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. -6-
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs President, Rajasthan, Roadways Union & Another AIR 2012 (SC) 569 has clearly held that the employee had received entire provident fund amount and since employee had not opted under the scheme, however, after nine years, the respondent Union is raising a dispute which in our view is absolutely untenable. The Tribunal as well as Courts below have committed a grave error in not properly appreciating the facts of the case and rendered a perverse finding which necessarily calls for interference.
11. In the present case also the complainant employee had received the entire provident fund amount and did not opt under the scheme for pension. After a period of more than 15 years in the year 2012 he made a request that on depositing the amount received by him, he be granted benefit of pension/family pension which was rejected by the opposite party and therefore he filed the present complaint. The fact remains that when he had already received full amount way back on 24.01.1997, he is no more a member and cannot get benefit of pension or his wife cannot get benefit of family pension as the complainant or his wife is no more consumer of the opposite party.
12. Learned District Commission has ignored the aforesaid provision of the scheme and held that the complainant/respondent is a -7- consumer of the opposite party/appellant EPF Commissioner whereas final settlement had already been made as on 24.01.1997 the complainant took benefit of withdrawal benefit during his life time i.e. before filing of complaint before the District Commission. Under these circumstances, after final settlement and withdrawal of full amount the deceased-complainant as well as his wife the present respondent do not fall under the category of consumer of opposite party/appellant.
13. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is found to be erroneous in respect to grant of pension to the complainant's wife/respondent under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995. The impugned order is hereby set-aside.
14. 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