STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/A/202/2024 M M GOSWAMI S/O L SH MADAN MOHAN GOSWAMI PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O HOUSE NO. 70, FIRST FLOOR, SECTOR -27/A, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION PRESENT ADDRESS - REGIONAL OFFICE SCO 4-7, SECTOR -17/D, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

PARVEEN GUPTA (Advocate)

DATED: 27/10/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench)

Appeal No.	:	202 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	20.05.2024
Date of Decision	:	27.10.2025

M.M.Goswami s/o L.Sh.Madan Mohan Goswami, R/o H.No.70, First Floor, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh …….Appellant V e r s u s Employees Provident Fund Organisation (through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner), Regional Office: SCO No.4-7, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh 160017.

…Respondent Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 12.04.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.536/2022.

BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER MR.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER For the appellant : Sh. Parveen Gupta, Advocate For the respondent : Sh.Gaurav Tangri, Advocate PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.04.2024, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the complaint bearing No.CC/536/2022.

2. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was case of the complainant that he retired from Haryana Tourism Cooperative Limited (HTC), on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2009. The complainant was subscriber/member of Provident Fund Scheme and Employees Pension Scheme holding PF Account NO.Pb/CHD/0006191/000/000103 and was issued Revised PPO No.PB/CHD/00042198. It was stated that the complainant being eligible for revision of Pension was intimated by RPFC, Chandigarh vide letter dated 10.10.2018 for deposit of differential amount of Rs.7,19,549/- as on 30.04.2019 (or Rs.7,24,639/- as on 31.05.2019) for getting the benefit of actual salary in the Pension Fund exceeding wage limit of either Rs.5,000/- or Rs.6500/- per month from effective dates respectively as per the Supreme Court's orders dated 04.10.2016 in SLP/33032- 33033/2015, R.C.Gupta & Other Vs. RPFC & Other. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs.7,19,549/- on 24.04.2019 for getting the benefit of revision of pension and then Revised PPO bearing No.PB/CHD/00042198, dated 25.05.2019/07.06.2019 was issued to the complainant showing the revised pension of Rs.7414 /- per month (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that after issue of revised PPO, the Opposite Party was required to pay the arrears of pension to the complainant from the date of retirement till the issue of revised PPO but the same was not paid. The complainant also submitted repeated representations to the Opposite Party. However, he was intimated that as per the revised guidelines received from the head office, copies of the options exercised under para 26(6) of EPF scheme, 1952 and under para 11(32) of EPS, 1995 needs to be submitted and in case these documents were not submitted within 15 days of the letters dated 5.9.2019 and 23.10.2019, the complainant would be treated as ineligible for revision of pension. The complainant vide letter dated

11.10.2019 sent detailed representation followed by reminder dated 06.11.2019 with a prayer that speaking order be issued on the representation of the complainant and requested that since the pension was revised, the arrears of pension be released immediately (Annexure C-5 & C-6). However, the Opposite party failed to settle the claim and did not release the arrears of revised pension to him. Hence, alleging deficiency in servi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document