National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Assistant Provident Fund ... vs Nityamatbi Gafar Maner on 9 November, 2017
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2402 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 12/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC DELHI NORTH, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NITYAMATBI GAFAR MANER R/O. H.NO. 2253, ANDOLAN NAGAR, CHECK POST BACK SIDE, NIPPANI-591237 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2403 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 12/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC DELHI NORTH, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. LAXMI W/O. YASHWANMT CHOWGULE, R/O. HNO. 2250, ANDOLAN NAGAR, NIPPANI, 591237 DISTRICT-BELGAUM ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2404 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 12/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC DELHI NORTH, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PRASHURAM S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO KITTUR, R/O. MIG-1, 187, GANDHI NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030 DISTRICT-DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2405 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 12/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC DELHI NORTH, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHREEKANTH S/O. SHAHUGOUDA PATIL, R/O. 11, RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,HUBLI-580030 DISTRICT-DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2406 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 12/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC DELHI NORTH, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ARUN S/O. VENKATRAO JOSHI,R/O. HITTALM ANI COMPOUND MANJUNATHPUR, MALAMADDI, DISTRICT-DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2407 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 12/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC DELHI NORTH, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. MOHAN S/O. VENKATESH TANKSALKAR, R/O. BINDARGI, ONI, GANESH PETH, HUBLI-580020 DISTRICT-DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2408 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 12/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC DELHI NORTH, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BABU S/O. MAYAPPA JAYAGONDE, R/O. FARIDKHAN WADI, TQ. ATHANI, DISTRICT-BELAGAVI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2409 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 12/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC DELHI NORTH, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ASHOK S/O. VISHNU RAO BAPKAR, R/O. H.NO. 43, BAWSAWESHWAR NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI-580030 DISTRICT-DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2410 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 12/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC DELHI NORTH, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. FAKIRAPPA S/O. MAHADEVAPPA DHARWAD, R/O. KALIDAS NAGAR, POST KUNDGOL-581113 DISTRICT-DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2411 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 05/12/2016 in Appeal No. 12/2015 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC DELHI NORTH, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VENUGOPAL S/O. CHIDAMBER KULLKARNI, R/O. NEKAR NAGAR, THIMMASAGAR ROAD, BEHIND MARUTHI TEMPLE ROAD, HUBLI-580030 DISTRICT-DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2437 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH
IA/11314/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11315/2017(Stay),IA/11316/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHIVAPPA S/O. SANJEEVAPPA IYATTI, R/O. CHAVADI ONI, SATTUR, TAHSIL AND DISTRICT- DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2438 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11317/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11318/2017(Stay),IA/11319/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NAGARAJ S/O. VENKATESH JOSHI, R/O. 39, LAXMI VENKATESH RAJ NAGAR, HUBLI, DHARWAD-580032 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2439 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11320/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11321/2017(Stay),IA/11322/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ISHWAR S/O. GIRIRAO TATUSKAR, R/O. 7, GANGADHAR COLONY, P & T, MICROWAVE STATION, SULLA ROAD, HUBLI DISTRICT- DHARWAD-580023 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2440 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11323/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11324/2017(Stay),IA/11325/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHANNAPPA S/O. BASAPPA TALAWAR, R/O. BHAVANI NAGAR, POST CHALAGERI, RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT-HAVERI ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2441 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11326/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11327/2017(Stay),IA/11328/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. KHANDAPPA, R/O. DUMAGERI ONI, UNKAL, HUBLI, DISTRICT- DHARWAD-580031 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2442 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11329/2017(Condonation of delay depositing amount),IA/11330/2017(Stay),IA/11331/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAGHUNATHGAUDA S/O. S/O. MAHADEVAGAUDA PATIL, R/O. HDMC 15/2, SIDDANAPETH, HUBLI-580028 DISTRICT- DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2443 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11332/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11333/2017(Stay),IA/11334/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. NAGARAJ S/O. RAGHAVENDRARAO SIDENUR, R/O. H.NO. 87, SRINIKETAN, GREEN GARDEN GOKUL ROAD,HUBLI, DISTRICT-DHARWAD-580032 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2444 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11335/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11336/2017(Stay),IA/11337/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GOPAL S/O.DATTAREYA DIXIT, R/O. 41,8TH CROSS RAJNAGAR, VISHVESHWAR NAGAR, HUBLI-580032 DISTRICT- DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2445 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11338/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11339/2017(Stay),IA/11340/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SAMSUDDIN S/O. ABDULKHADER HULIGERI, R/O. MAQBOOL MANZIL, MANGALAGATTI PLOTS, SADHANKERI DISTRICT- DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2446 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11341/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11342/2017(Stay),IA/11343/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. KASHINATH S/O. RAMANNA SHINDHE, R/O. MARUTHI NAGAR, BIDNAL PLOT, HUBLI-580022 ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2447 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11344/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11345/2017(Stay),IA/11346/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ABDULRASOOL S/O. ABDULRAZAK JALIHAL R/O. NEAR LAST BUS STOP, MALAPUR, DISTRICT- DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2448 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11347/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11348/2017(Stay),IA/11349/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. AKBARSAB S/O. ALISAB MAGAMI, R/O. GOUSYA TOWN, ISLAMPUR ROAD, OLD HUBLI HUBLI-580034 DISTRICT- DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2449 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11350/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11351/2017(Stay),IA/11352/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GOPAL SINGH R/O. VASANT SINGH, KILLEDAR CHAWAL, LINE BAZAAR DISTRICT- DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2450 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11353/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11354/2017(Stay),IA/11355/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SIDRAMAPPA S/O. SANGANABASAPPA DANGARI, R/O. P.O. SULLA, TQ HUBLI, DISTRICT- DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2451 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11356/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11357/2017(Stay),IA/11358/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. PARTICK MICHAEL FRANCIS R/O. SWAGAT COLONY, GOPANAKOPPA, HUBLI DISTRICT- DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2452 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11359/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11360/2017(Stay),IA/11361/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BURHANSAB S/O. SH. FAKIRASAB RESHMI, R/O. H.NO. 24/A, AZAD PARK, BESIDE PRAKASH COLONY, GADAG ROAD, HUBLI, DISTRICT- DHARWAD ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 2453 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 28/10/2016 in Appeal No. 100/2014 of the State Commission Karnataka) WITH IA/11362/2017(Condonation of delay),IA/11363/2017(Stay),IA/11364/2017(Exemption from filing the Certified Copy) 1. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION THROUGH APFC, DELHI (NORTH) SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW BLOCK 10, BEHIND INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAVA NAGAR, HUBLI-580025 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SHIVAPPA S/O. KRISHTAPPA HEBBALLI, C/O. SAI DWARAKAMAI STORE, JUMMA MASJID ROAD, AR POST RENEBENNUR, DISTRICT-HAVERI KARANATAKA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Atul Batra, Mr. Kundan Kr. Mishra, Ms. Shneya Mathur, Advocates with Mr. Bhim Singh Tomar, Section Supervisor, EPFO For the Respondent :
Dated : 09 Nov 2017 ORDER
1. These 27 Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organization, Hubli, Karnataka, through APFC, Delhi (North), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints under the Act, are directed against different orders, dated 28.10.2016, 05.12.2016 & 15.12.2016, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No. 12/2015, 14/2015, 1457/2016, 1459/2016, 1460/2016, 1461/2016, 1465/2016, 1759/2016, 1760/2016, 1761/2016, 100/2014, 101/2014, 102/2014, 103/2014, 104/2014, 105/2014, 106/2014, 107/2014, 108/2014, 109/2014, 110/2014, 112/2014, 13/2015, 79/2015, 80/2015, 81/2015 & 667/2015. By the impugned orders, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein, questioning the correctness and legality of the orders, dated 28.11.2014, 18.12.2015, 27.04.2016, 29.08.2013, 28.11.2014, 19.12.2014 & 31.08.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Dharwad (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Cases No. 207/2014, 206/2014, 273/2015, 269/2015, 272/2015, 271/2015, 268/2015, 314/2015, 315/2015, 316/2015, 76/2013, 72/2013, 73/2013, 74/2013, 75/2013, 77/2013, 78/2013, 79/2013, 81/2013, 82/2013, 83/2013, 85/2013, 205/2014, 232/2014, 233/2014, 234/2014 & 188/2015, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants. By the said orders, while partly allowing the Complaints, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to re-fix the pension payable to the Complainants, as per Rule 12(3)(a), (b) & (c), 12(4)(a) & (b), read with Rule 10(2) of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, by giving weightage of two years and past service benefit from the date of their retirement, and pay the balance amount of pension due to each of them within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said orders. Additionally, in some of the cases the District Forum had awarded compensation of ₹1,000/- and litigation costs, quantified between ₹500/- and ₹1000/-, in favour of each of the Complainants, with a default stipulation of payment of interest, ranging between 6% - 9% p.a., from the date of the order/retirement/commencement of pension, till realization, in the event of failure on the part of the Petitioner to pay the said amounts within the stipulated period.
2. Although the Forums below have decided the Complaints/Appeals by several orders but the issue involved in all the Complaints being similar, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of ready reference, Revision Petition No. 2402 of 2017 is treated as the lead case and the facts enumerated hereunder are taken from the said Revision Petition.
3. The Complainant in the said Revision Petition was an employee of Sambar Beedi Factory, Nipani, District Belgaum since 1981. Being the employee of the said establishment, she became a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and was also allotted a PF Account Number by the Petitioner. In the year 1971, the Petitioner introduced the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, which came into force on 01.03.1971, and the Complainant was member of the said Scheme since 1981. On introduction of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, the Complainant opted for the same and, accordingly, contributed towards the same till her retirement on 31.10.2003. As per the new Scheme, the beneficiaries who were to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years or/and who had rendered 20 years' service, were to be given two years weightage, while calculating their pensionable service. Since the Complainant had rendered more than 20 years' service, she was entitled for the same. However, the Petitioner, while calculating the amount of pension payable to her, failed to take into consideration her past and present service and consequently did not follow the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Scheme. Aggrieved, the Complainant got issued a legal notice to the Petitioner, which evoked no response. In the said background and left with no other option, the Complainant preferred the Complaint before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein. More or less, same was the position with the other Complainants, who also preferred their respective Complaints before the District Forum.
4. On consideration of the evidence adduced before it by the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the Complainants were entitled for the weightage of two years and, accordingly, while partly allowing the Complaints, issued the aforesaid directions to the Petitioner.
5. Being unsuccessful before the First Appellate Authority, viz., the State Commission, the Petitioner is before us in the present Revision Petitions.
6. It is pointed out by the office that these Revision Petitions are barred by limitation, inasmuch as there is a delay, ranging between 145 and 187 days in filing the same. For condonation of the said delay, since the Petitioner has filed Applications on identical lines, we propose to refer/examine the explanation furnished in the leading case, viz. Revision Petition No.2402 of 2017. In paragraphs 3 - 4 of the said Application, the Petitioner has furnished the following crisp explanation:
"3. That the delay so occasioned in preferring the accompanying Revision Petition is attributable to the circumstances beyond the control of the Revisionist who acted bonafide with utmost sincerity & with highest degree of promptitude in prosecuting the case through with due diligence and care, however, it took some time to arrange and process the things including legal opinion, clearance, etc. in laying up the present Revision Petition on behalf of the Revisionist before this Hon'ble Commission hence the delay.
That the impugned order was passed on 05.12.2016 (issued on 31.01.2017 and received on 22.03.2017). Thereafter there occasioned some delay in arranging the file and the documents.
4. That thereafter the legal opinion was sought from the panel counsel to challenge the impugned order and on receipt of the opinion dated 24.05.2017 from the panel counsel, the permission was sought to challenge the impugned order which was received only on 29.05.2017. Accordingly, the present panel advocate was appointed vide letter dated 13.06.2017, who thereafter made request for providing various documents relied by the parties. The advocate after ascertaining all the documents and approval from the department filed the present revision petition at the earliest."
7. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of limitation.
8. At this juncture, we may note that regard being had to the fact that the substantive issue, sought to be raised by the Petitioner in these Petitions, viz. whether the Complainants were entitled to the weightage of two years in terms of Para (10) of the 1995 Scheme, stood decided by this Commission as far back as in the year 2014, in Revision Petition No. 2864 of 2014, and the said decision had been approved subsequently in a number of Petitions, by order dated 12.10.2017, in Revision Petition No. 2649 of 2017 and other connected orders, which were also dismissed as barred by limitation, vide order dated 21.09.2017, the Petitioner was directed to file an affidavit, stating as to how much amount had already been spent or was likely to be spent in future in other matters, which were stated to be still in the pipeline, on litigation and other incidental expenses. We are constrained to observe that instead of furnishing precise information on the afore-noted points, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal) has taken pains to mention the number of lakhs of Pensioners, the Pan India pension liability in respect of these Pensioners, running into crores of rupees. Obviously, the said figures have been highlighted to project the enormity and importance of the issue involved, conveniently avoiding to disclose the number of the Pensioners/ Complainants who have already been granted similar relief by virtue of a large number of orders, which have admittedly, attained finality.
9. Now, adverting to the explanation furnished by the Petitioner in the present cases, in our opinion, the explanation furnished is absolutely unsatisfactory. Though it is contended on behalf of the Petitioner Organization that free copy of the impugned orders, which had been passed by the State Commission on 28.10.2016, 05.12.2016 and 15.12.2016, had been issued by the State Commission on 31.01.2017 and received by them only on 22.03.2017, in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the stated plea, it belies our conviction that the copy of the order would have taken more than 50 days to reach the addressee/Petitioner. Be that as it may, even assuming that the Petitioner had received copy of the orders on 22.03.2017, it took almost two months in obtaining opinion of the Counsel on 24.05.2017; and then almost twenty days in choosing the Counsel from its long list of Panel Lawyers on 13.06.2017, who also took his merry time and ultimately filed the present Revision Petitions after completing necessary formalities only on 28.07.2017 and 01.08.2017, when the period of limitation to file the Petitions was already over long time back.
10. If the Petitioner was so concerned about the quantum of the amount of Pension involved, as highlighted in the afore-stated affidavit, it ought to have pursued at least these cases with alacrity, which, is not the case here. Apart from the fact that an organization of the Petitioner's scale and resources, it is expected to know the law of limitation, in almost all the earlier matters, which have been dismissed on the ground of limitation, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 563] had been relied upon and the attention of the Petitioner was drawn by highlighting to the following underlined observations in the said decision:
"28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."
(emphasis supplied)
11. Mercifully, except for the period of delay in filing the Petitions has shortened by a few days, the afore-stated observations seems to have had no effect on the functioning of the Petitioner organization. Hence, bearing in mind the afore-stated facts and the above observations as also the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone the aforesaid inordinate delay in filing of the present Revision Petitions.
12. At the cost of repetition, we may note that the issue involved in these Revision Petitions already stands concluded by a catena of orders of this Commission, particularly by order dated 09.04.2013 in Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur Vs. Basappa Ningappa Kaltippi, Revision Petition No.784 of 2013, as well as by order dated 28.07.2014 in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bellary Vs. Mohammad Khasim, Revision Petition No. 2864 of 2014 & other connected matters. In Mohammad Khasim (supra) a Coordinate Bench of this Commission, on examination of the benevolent provisions of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, with reference to the earlier Schemes, viz., Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, has held that the Complainants would be entitled to the weightage of two years in terms of Sub-Para (2) of Para (10) of the 1995 Scheme and accordingly dismissed the Revision Petitions preferred by the Petitioner. Thus, the orders passed by the lower Fora in relation to a large number of similarly situated Pensioners having attained finality, non-grant of similar relief to the Respondents/Complainants in the computation of their pensionary benefits would not only create an avoidable anomaly, it would be discriminatory as well.
13. Consequently, the Revision Petitions are dismissed as miserably barred by limitation as well as on merits.
......................J D.K. JAIN PRESIDENT ...................... M. SHREESHA MEMBER