Consumer forums cannot retroactively apply amendments to pension schemes unless explicitly allowed, upholding the jurisdictional limits in interpreting legislative intent.

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 further directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.20,000 as compensation towards mental agony and Rs.5,000 as litigation costs. vide such Order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party No. 2 was directed to take appropriate steps to pay the "Early Pension" as well as the pending amount to the Complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was a Bank employee of the then undivided Ramanathapuram District Central Cooperative Bank, and was working at Maniparai from 9.1.1976 onwards and at various bank till 15.7.1993. Thereafter, the Complainant was continuing his service in Virudhunagar District Central Cooperative Bank till 16.7.1993. The Complainant was terminated from service on 12.9.2003. As stated in the complaint, the Complainant was working in the Bank for 10 years and 3 months, therefore, he was entitled for pension under "Employees" Pension Scheme - 1995". The Complainant filed an application for paying pension to the Opposite Party No. 1 through Opposite Party No. 2 on 17.3.2011. Such application was rejected vide order dated 13.2.2012 by the Opposite Party No. 1 stating that the Complainant is not entitled for pension as the service rendered by him was below 10 years. Again, the Complainant made an application dated 24.2.2012 to the Opposite Party No. 1 to reconsider his claim. But, no action was taken to reconsider the same. Due to inaction of the Opposite Party No. 1, the Complainant was put in mental and physical agony. Therefore, he filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum against the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2.

3. The said complaint was resisted by the Opposite Parties by filing their Counter Statement contending that the Complainant had not put in the minimum service of 10 years to become eligible to get early pension. It was stated that the Complainant's claim had been rejected legally as there was no deficiency in service on its part, and that the complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4. The District Forum after hearing the parties and perusing all the documents on record, finally allowed the complaint vide Order dated 9.7.2015, and directions were given to the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2, as mentioned in Para 1 above.

5. Being aggrieved by such Order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party No. 1 had filed an Appeal before the State Commission. By the Impugned Order dated 26.2.2018, the State Commission while allowing the Appeal had dismissed the complaint by setting aside the order of the District Forum, and after holding that the Complainant had not put in minimum required eligible service of 10 years so as to be sanctioned early pension as per para 12(1)(b) of the Employees" Pension Scheme, 1995, and that there was no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.

6. Hence, the Revision Pet