National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vs Vasant Madhav Kerur on 9 April, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO.765 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4544 of 2010 of the
Karnataka
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1394 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1395 OF 2013
(Stay
& Condonation of Delay)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Vasant Madhav Kerur
S/o Annacharya Kerur
R/o SBI Colony, Badami, Dist. Dhawad
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.784 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4545 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1429 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1634 OF 2013
(Stay
& Exemption from filing the
Certified
copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Basappa Ningappa Kaltippi
Tebbar Gali, Basaveshwar Gali
At/Post-Hunnur
TAq. Jamakhandi, Dist. Bagalkot
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.785 OF 2013
(From
order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No. 4546 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1430 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1635 OF 2013
(Stay
& Exemption from filing the
Certified
copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Bawasa Goususa Akki
R/o Sector-2, Near Urdu School
Navanagar, At/Post Bagalkot
Tq. & Dist. Bagalkot
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.786 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4547 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1431 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1636 OF 2013
(Stay
& Exemption from filing the
Certified
copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Virupakshayya
R/o Plot No.12, Sector-10
Navanagar, At/Post Bagalkot
Tq. & Dist. Bagalkot Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.980 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4543 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1785 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1786 OF 2013
(Stay
& Exemption from filing the
Certified
copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Basappa Mantoor
S/o Laxman Mantoor
R/o House No.C-2, Sector-36
Navanagar, Bagalkot
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.981 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4548 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1787 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1788 OF 2013
(Stay
& Exemption from filing the
Certified
copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Shanthappa
R/o Opp.Kakareddy Hostel
Near Basaveswar Engineering College
Vidyagiri, Bagalkot Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.982 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4549 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1789 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1790 OF 2013
(Stay
& Exemption from filing the
Certified
copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Mahaboob Saab
S/o Peersab Badami
R/o Asgar Gali
Near Anjuman High School, Bagalkot
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO.983 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4550 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1791 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1792 OF 2013
(Stay
& Exemption from filing the
Certified
copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Raghappa Patil
S/o Bhimappa Patil
R/o Bagalkot Division
Near Chawanbai Hospital, Bagalkot
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 984 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4551 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1793 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1794 OF 2013
(Stay
& Exemption from filing the
Certified
copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Krishnaji M. Kulkarni
S/o Madhawrao Kulkarni
H.No. S-6, Sector-57
Prasanna Venkata Colony
Bagalkot
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2013
(From
order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No. 4553 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1849 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1850 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1851 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Babu
S/o Sakaram Masuti
R/o Free Colony Settlement
Near Shakti Theatre
Gandhi Nagar, Bagalkot Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1009 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4554 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1852 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1853 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1854 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Veerbasantray M. Pattar
R/o Postal Colony, 4th Cross
Vodyagiri
Post/Dist. Bagalkot Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1010 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4555 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1855 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1856 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1857 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Shivayagappa
S/o Ningappa Jalihal
R/o Togunashi
Post/Dist. Bagalkot Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1011 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4558 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1858 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1859 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1860 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Maliksab
S/o Peersab Patil
R/o At./Post Neeralakeri
Post/Dist. Bagalkot
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1064 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4552 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1948 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1949 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2185 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Hayat
S/o Mohmmad Hanifsab Bijapur
R/o Railway Station Road
Near Bilal Masji, Bagalkot
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1065 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4556 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1950 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1951 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2186 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Petitioner
Versus
Allasab
S/o Aminsab Bagawan
R/o Ullagade Street, Near Hanuman Temple
Post/Dist. Bagalkot
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1066 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4557 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1952 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1953 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2187 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
1. Chandrashekhar
S/o Sidagagappa Chilakanti
R/o Ganagerchawi Balpeti
Post/Dist. Bagalkot
2.
The Divisional Controller
NW KSRTC, Bagalkot Division, Bagalkot Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO. 1067 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4559 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 1954 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1955 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2188 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Muddakappa
S/o Keludappa Adin
R/o H.No.35, 12th Cross
Vidyagiri, At/Post/Dist. Bagalkot Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1068 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4560 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Bangalore)
WITH
I.A.
No. 1956 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 1957 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2189 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
1. Channappa
S/o Sidramappa
R/o Varthak Gali Mudhul Road
AT/Post/Jamakandi, Dist. Bagalkot
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bagalkot Division
Divisional Office, Bagalkot Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO. 1118 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4561 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 2005 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2006 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2140 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
1. Mallikarjun
S/o Parappa Loni
R/o Hylyalakar Gali
At/Post Jamakandi, Dist. Bagalkot
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bagalkot Division
Divisional Office, Bagalkot Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO. 1119 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4562 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 2007 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2008 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2141 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Mohammad
S/o Ibrahim Saidi, R/o Momin Gali
At/Post Jamakandi, Dist. Bagalakot Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1120 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4563 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 2009 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2010 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2142 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
1. Mohammad
Yusuf
S/o Rajasaheb Sheik
R/o H.No.530, Bharapeth Gali
At/Post Jamakandi, Dist. Bagalkot
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bagalkot Division
Divisional Office, Bagalkot Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO. 1121 OF 2013
( From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4566 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 2011 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2012 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2143 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
1. Ananth
S/o Pandurang Savai
R/o Mali Gali
At/Post Jamakandi, Dist. Bagalkot
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bagalkot Division
Divisional Office, Bagalkot Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO. 1126 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4564 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 2025 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2026 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2190 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
1. Mallappa
S/o Huchappa Neelakanti
At/Post Kadapatti
Tq. Jamakandi, Dist. Bagalkot
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bagalkot Division
Divisional Office, Bagalkot Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO. 1127 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4565 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 2027 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2028 OF 2013
I.A.
No.2191 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
1. Appasaha
S/o Taunappa Naik
Ramadev Gali
At/Post Jamakandi, Dist.Bagalkot
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bagalkot Division
Divisional Office, Bagalkot Respondents
REVISION PETITION NO. 1128 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4567 of 2010 of the
Karnataka
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 2029 OF 2013
I.A.
No.2030 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2192 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Basalingayya
S/o Gurayya Ganachari
R/o Gadad Gali
At/Post Jamakandi, Dist. Bagalkot
Respondent
REVISION PETITION NO. 1129 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4568 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 2031 OF 2013
I.A.
No.2032 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2193 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
Maruti
S/o Dattatray Savant
R/o Appasaheb Vittal Mandir
At/Post Jamakandi, Dist. Bagalkot Respondent
And
REVISION PETITION NO. 1130 OF 2013
(From order dated 04.09.2012 in First Appeal No.
4569 of 2010 of the
Karnataka State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore )
WITH
I.A.
No. 2033 OF 2013
I.A.
No. 2034 OF 2013
I.A.
No.2194 OF 2013
(Stay,
Condonation of delay & Exemption
from
filing the Certified copy)
Assistant Provident Fund
Commissioner, Raichur
Through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal)
Delhi
28, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi
Petitioner
Versus
1. Panduranga
S/o Bindurao Huli
R/o Tulsagiri
Sector No.56, Near Nayar Math
Navanagar, Dist. Bagalkot
2. The Divisional Controller
NWKRTC, Bagalkot Division
Divisional Office, Bagalkot Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE MR.JUSTICE J. M. MALIK
, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE
DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner in all cases : Mr. Shivanath Mahanta,
Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON_09.04.2013
O R D E R
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. The parties are up in arms over the question of pension. It is always desirable that the pensioners should be treated with kid gloves but it is unfortunate that in our times, they are exasperated by senseless delay. The Department is always interested in wasting more money and their time, than it is involved in such like frivolous litigations.
2. This common order will decide 27 cases detailed above. After having lost the cases before the District Forum and appeals before the State Commission, these revision petitions have been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, OP. There is delay of 85 days, in RP 765/2013, 1 day delay each in RP 1008/2013, RP 1009/2013, RP No. 1010/2013, RP No. 1011/2013, respectively, 6 days delay each in RP 1064/2013, RP No. 1065/2013, RP No. 1066/2013, RP No. 1067/2013, RP No. 1068/2013, respectively, 7 days delay each in RP No. 1118/ 2013, RP No. 1119/2013, RP No. 1120/2013, RP No. 1121/2013, and delay of 8 days each in RP No. 1126/2013, RP No.1127/2013, RP No. 1128/2013, RP No.1129/2013 and RP No. 1130/2013, respectively. In the interest of justice and for the reasons mentioned in the applications for condonation of delay, we hereby condone the said delay. 3. The facts of these cases are similar and similar question of law is involved, therefore, we are deciding all these cases, in this single judgment.
4. Facts of the case are taken from RP No. 765/2013. As a matter of fact, the OP Assistant Provident Commissioner, Raichur, through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi has picked up a conflict with the ex-employees of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (in short, hereinafter referred to as KSRTC). All the 26 employees/complainants retired on attaining the age of superannuation. This is an indisputable fact that the complainants continued to be in service under their employer prior to the year 1971. They were the members of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, so also the members of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The OP issued a circular wherein the past service, i.e., service from to 15.11.1995 was shown as 24 years.
Pensionable service from to 16.11.1995 to 2 years. The relevant portion of the circular runs as follows :-
OP-2 C.C.No. 77/10 P.P.O. No. 4408
01.
Past service (service from to 15.11.1995) 24 years
02. Pensionable service (service from 16.11.95 to 02 years
03. Age as on 16.11.1995 55 years
04. Wages as on 15.11.1995 Above Rs.2,500/-
05. Pensionable salary Rs.5,000/-
a).
Past service benefit (as per table under Para 12, if the service is 24 years and salary is above Rs.2,500/-
Rs.170/-
Factor (Age as on 15.11.1995 Less : Years to complete 58 years 58 years 55 less than 03 years Rs.1,269/-
..
..
5. The grouse of the complainant was that OP, while fixing the pension did not take into account, the entire period of service and OP did not take into consideration the weightage of 2 years while calculating the pension. They alleged that pension awarded to them was on the lower side. They felt deficiency in service and accordingly filed complaints.
6. The District Forum allowed the complaints filed by the complainants. aggrieved by that order, the OPs filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal.
7. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that OPs have calculated the pension as per rules and Scheme. It was argued that since the complainants have not served or rendered their service for more than 20 years and that too, for pensionable service, they are not entitled to weightage of two years. They have calculated the pension of complainants in accordance with the Scheme.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the fora below have not applied their mind and the relevant rules were not discussed. He invited our attention to another circular, which reads as follows:-
As per the paragraph No.12(3) r/w 10 (2) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, pension shall be aggregate of the pension for the period from 16.11.1995 and the pension for the past service.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that past service cannot be counted and the complainants cannot be given the benefit of weightage of two years.
10. All these arguments are not convincing. Both the above said circulars must be read in conjunction with each other. It clearly means that past service shall be counted. The authorities have to consider the aggregate of the PAST SERVICE PLUS the period from 16.11.1995 onwards. The complainants who have joined the service before 1971 have got more than 24 years. Consequently, they are entitled to get weightage of two years. As a matter of fact, the complainants have rendered more than 26 years of service. Consequently, they are entitled to the benefit of weightage of two years. The complainants are entitled for two years weightage under Rule 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and their pension has to be fixed accordingly.
11. The counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority reported in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98, however, its relevant portion goes against it, which runs as follows:-
We cannot accept the argument that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, being Central Government, cannot be held to be rendering service within the meaning and scheme of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, under the Act and the Scheme discharges statutory functions for running the Scheme. It has not, in any way, been delegated with the sovereign powers of the State so as to hold it as a Central Government, being not the authority rendering the service under the Act. The Commissioner is a separate and distinct entity. It cannot legally claim that the facilities provided by the Scheme were not service or that the benefits under the Scheme being provided were free of charge. The definition of consumer under the Act includes not only the person who hires the services for consideration but also the beneficiary, for whose benefit such services are hired. Even if it is held that administrative charges are paid by the Central Government and no part of it is paid by the employee, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner in running the Scheme shall be deemed to have been availed of for consideration by the Central Government for the benefit of employees who would be treated as beneficiaries within the meaning of that word used in the definition of consumer. This court in Spring Meadows Hospital V. Harjot Ahluwalia, 7 (1998) 4 SCC: JT (1998) 2 SC 620, to which one of us (Saghir Ahmad, J) was a party has already held that the consumer means a person who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails the services. The Act gives a comprehensive definition of consumer who is the principal beneficiary of the legislation but at the same time in view of the comprehensive definition of the term consumer even a member of the family of such consumer was held to be having the status of consumer .
12. The namby pamby pleas raised by the counsel for the petitioner do not cut much ice. All the revision petitions are meritless and the same are, therefore, dismissed, with costs of Rs.2,000/- each to each of the complainants, within three months from today, else it will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a. ..
(J. M. MALIK,J.) PRESIDING MEMBER .
(S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER dd/6 to 32