Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner —Petitioner
versus
Satya Narayan Pal —Respondent
Revision Petition No.2773 of 2008
(Against the Order dated 10/07/2007 in Appeal No.106/2006 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 10.9.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Balraj Dewan, Advocate with Mr. Bhim Singh, Sr. Asstt.
For the Respondent: In person
IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Revision—The respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/opposite party on the ground that his pension has been wrongly fixed as Rs.551/- per month instead of Rs. 835/- per month as per the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995—It was the case of the complainant that he was a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 for more than 35 years, therefore, entitled for the maximum benefits under the scheme—After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence, vide order dated 25.08.2003, the District Forum directed that the respondent to re-examine the pension case of the complainant as per the notification of Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi dated 16.11.95 and there is no order as to costs—The respondent is also ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of present order—However, as the O.P failed to comply with the orders, the complainant filed an execution petition which was allowed by the District forum directing the O.P to pay the said amount of Rs. 835/- in the shape of pension to the complainant w.e.f. its due date and on account of failure to comply with the order, the District Forum vide order dated 01.05.2006 issued bailable warrants of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety for the like amount—Against the order revision was filed before the State Commission which was dismissed and hence, the present revision –upon perusing the facts and the documents filed, there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission, the revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Result: Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby the petitioner herein seeks to assail the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in revision petition No.106/2006. By way of the impugned order, the revision petition preferred against the orders dated 06.12.2005 and 01.05.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) in Execution Petition No.456/2003 has been dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/opposite party on the ground that his pension has been wrongly fixed as Rs.551/- per month instead of Rs. 835/- per month as per the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. It was the case of the complainant that he was a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 for more than 35 years, therefore, entitled for the maximum benefits under the scheme. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence, vide order dated 25.08.2003, the District Forum observed that since the complainant falls under the category of sub-paragrah-5 and attained the age of 55 years on 16.11.95, the date of birth being 29.04.1940 and fulfilled the condition of 24 years past service from 01.03.1971 to 15.11.1995, the minimum monthly pension shall be Rs. 335/- plus Rs. 500/- making the total of Rs. 835/- and not Rs. 551/-. Vide the same order, the opposite party was directed as follows:-
“The respondent is ordered to re-examine the pension case of the complainant as per the notification of Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi dated 16.11.95. However, there is no order as to costs. The respondent is also ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of present order.”
3. Thereafter, an application was filed for execution of the order dated 25.08.2003 passed by the District Forum. Vide order dated 06.12.2005, the District Forum held as follows:-
“The Forum has observed that the case of the complainant is only concerned with the first part of this sub-section-b and is not at all related to the later part of this section. The Forum is, therefore, of the opinion that the pension of the complainant is to be determined as per first part of this b-clause of the same section. It is made more clear that the minimum pension has been prescribed as Rs. 500/- p.m. and in section-a the minimum pension has been described as Rs. 335/- total making Rs. 835/-. The Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to this pension. The respondents are ordered to pay the said amount in the shape of pension to the complainant w.e.f. its due date”.
4. Allegedly on account of failure to comply with the order, the District Forum vide order dated 01.05.2006 issued bailable warrants of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety for the like amount.
5. Aggrieved by the orders dated 06.12.2005 and 01.05.2006, the opposite party preferred a revision petition before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 10.07.2007 dismissed the revision petition.
6. Hence the present revision petition.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent/complainant in person. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent/complainant is entitled only to a pension of Rs.551/- per month as calculated by the petitioner department. The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum finally ordered that the case of the respondent in respect of the pension should be decided in the light of the notification of Government of India Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi dated 16.11.1995.
8. Learned counsel argued that the Government of India Ministry of Labour & Employment issued a notification dated 15.06.2007 and
