National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vs Shankar on 18 May, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1297 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 557/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION HUBLI, THROUGH ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (NORTH) BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 28, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SADASHIV S/O. VEERSANGAPPA BALIGAR, R/O. SHIVLEELA ARTS, 1ST CROSS SHIVAJINAGAR, DISTRICT-HAVERI-581110 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1298 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 559/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH
IA/8741/2018(Condonation of delay),IA/8742/2018(Stay),IA/8743/2018(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION HUBLI, THROUGH ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (NORTH) BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 28, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHANKAR S/O. NAGAPPA BHUSANUR, R/O. DUMAWADI, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, ATHANI DISTRICT-BELGAUM-591304 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1299 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 560/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/8744/2018(Condonation of delay),IA/8745/2018(Stay),IA/8746/2018(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION HUBLI, THROUGH ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (NORTH) BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 28, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA,` NEW DELHI-110052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BASAVANNEPPA S/O. MAHARUDRAPPA JEWOORKAR, R/O. H.NO.211/2, 2ND CROSS VEERABHARA NIVAS, YOGIKOLLA EXTN. AREA, GOKAK DISTRICT-BELGAUM ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 1300 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 563/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/8747/2018(Condonation of delay),IA/8748/2018(Stay),IA/8749/2018(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION HUBLI, THROUGH ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, REGIONAL OFFICE DELHI (NORTH) BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN 28, WAZIRPUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110052 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. SIDRAMAPPA PRADHANI, R/O. H.NO. 3271, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, PARASHETTI GALI ATHANI, DISTRICT-BELGAUM-591304 ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. PUNEET GARG For the Respondent :
Dated : 18 May 2018 ORDER Challenge in these four Revision Petitions, by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Hubli, District Dharwad, is to the common order dated 28.10.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeals No.557, 559, 560 and 563/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 27.2.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short "the District Forum") in Complaints No.295, 300, 311 and 312/2014 and has thus dismissed the Appeals.
2. In the first instance, while allowing the Complaints filed by the Respondents herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner in not granting weightage of two years under Rule 10(2) of Employees Provident Scheme, 1995 (EPS) and refixation of their pension accordingly, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to each of the Complainants interest @ 8% p.a. on the differential amount, from the date of their retirement till its realization, along with costs of ₹1,000/-. The District Forum had also directed that if the said amounts were not remitted to each of the Complainants within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of its order, the balance amount towards pension shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of their retirement till its realization, apart from payment of ₹1,000/- as cost of litigation as also a sum of ₹1,000/- towards loss and mental agony in each of the cases.
3. The sole ground on which the legality and correctness of the impugned order has been challenged is the direction with regard to payment of interest. It is urged by learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that weightage of two years having already been granted and the differential amount having been paid to each of the Complainants before the filing of the Complaints by them, the Fora below committed material irregularity in awarding interest on the said amount. However, on a pointed query, learned Counsel has candidly admitted that, according to his instructions, there was substantial delay in release of the differential amount to the Complainants.
Regard being had to the fact that admittedly there was delay of almost 6 years in release of the differential amount to the retired employees, for whom every single rupee is important and that the interest on the differential amount, directed to be paid, would be a paltry sum and additionally issuance of notice to the Complainants in each of these Petitions would entail further expenses towards travel and allied expenses, which would be in the range of ₹10,000/- in each of the cases, we do not find these cases to be fit for interference in exercise of revisionary jurisdiction vested in this Commission.
The Revision Petitions are dismissed accordingly.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER