Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Circuit Bench, J
Narayanasamys P. v. Commissioner The Employee Provident Fund Organization
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the revision petition and its context. (Para 1) |
| 2. complaint initiated by a terminated employee seeking pension. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. dispute over eligible minimum service for pension claimed by complainant. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 24) |
| 4. court's clarification on retrospective legislative interpretation. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. final ruling on the revision petition. (Para 25) |
1. This Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner / Complainant against the Impugned Order dated 26.2.2018 passed by the Circuit Bench of Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, at Madurai, in First Appeal No. 76 of 2015 which was filed by the Respondent No. 1 / Opposite Party No. 1. Vide such Order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal by setting aside the Order dated 9.7.2015 of the District Forum, Virdhunagar, at Srivilliputur, passed in Complaint Case No. 40 of 2012 filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2, vide which the complaint was allowed directing the Opposite Party No. 1 to pay the "Early Pension" to the Complainant within one month from the date of the Order alongwith 6% interest. The Opposite Party No. 1 was fu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
