JUDGMENT :

SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties.

2. Both the parties submitted written notes of submissions.

3. The present writ petition assails the order dated 05/07/2021, passed by the respondent No.1, Nominated Authority of the Central Government rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners had filed distinct complaints before the District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon. Their complaints were allowed by common Judgment and order dated 03/01/2019. Being aggrieved, the respondents had filed appeals before State Consumer Forum, Nashik. By common Judgment and order, passed on 18/12/2019, Judgment of the District Consumer Forum was quashed and the matter was referred to the respondent No.1 under Section 41 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter shortly referred to as the ‘Act’).

4. The petitioners’ are superannuated employees of the respondent No.4 Corporation. They were appointed during the period 1973 to 1990. They superannuated during the period 2005 to 2014. They rendered services and are entitled to receive pensionary benefits. The details of their services are provided in a Chart (Exhibit “A”). There is no serious dispute about the details of appointment, retirement and their pensionable service mentioned in the chart. The dispute is in respect of the difference of pension and the arrears of pension claimed by them in the chart.

5. According to petitioners, they were the members of Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (hereinafter shortly referred to as ‘Scheme of 1971’). The Scheme was superseded on 16/11/1995 by Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (hereinafter shortly referred to as ‘Scheme of 1995’).

6. The petitioners had contributed under the Scheme of 1971 as well as Scheme of 1995. When they superannuated, Scheme of 1995 was in operation. They were not paid the pensionary benefits considering the past service rendered from their date of appointment till 15/11/1995. There is deficiency of the services and legitimate benefits were denied to them.

7. It is contention of the petitioners that Act of 1952, Schemes of 1971 and 1995 are the beneficial legislations meant for the welfare of the employees. Therefore, they were entitled to the benefits of enhanced pension considering the past services.

8. The claim of the petitioners was contested by the respondents No.1 to 3 before Consumer Forum as well as in this Court. According to them, the petitioners were paid due benefits under the old Scheme and existing Scheme. The past service rendered by them was duly considered while calculating the pensionable service. They were not governed by paragraphs No.12 (2) of the Scheme of 1995. They were in fact governed by paragraphs No.12 (3) (4) and (5) of the same. Along with affidavit in reply, the respondents also produced the pension payment orders (PPO) disclosing the consideration of past service. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is contended to be extraneous.

9. The District Consumer Forum recorded that there was deficiency in the services. When the petitioners had contributed and were members of the Scheme of 1971, they were not paid benefit after their retirement. It was held that they were entitled to receive pension as per paragraph No.12 (4) of the Scheme of 1995.

10. The appeals were carried against the common Judgment referred to above to the State Consumer Commission, Mumbai. It was opined that there was a provision to redress the grievance by approaching Central Government under Section 41 of the Act. The petitioners were directed to make representation to the competent authority nominated by the Central Government. The concerned authority was directed to decide it within six months. In case, no decision was arrived at, the appeals were directed to be restored. Thus the appeals were allowed in above terms.

11. The respondent No.1 Nominated Authority passed distinct orders on 05/07/2021 rejecting the claim of the petit