1.      The present revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission  dated 19.03.2015 in First Appeal No.620 of 2013 of the petitioner whereby his appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 12.11.2012 in complaint case No.230 of 2012  of respondent no.1 to 3/complainants, was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that Late Sh. Chhaju Ram was an employee of respondent No.5.  On his demise, his legal representatives were entitled for the benefit of pension.  He expired on 27.10.2003.  Although, the legal representatives had become entitled for the pension, the pension was not disbursed to them till the year 2012.  In the year 2012, the complainants sent a legal notice to the petitioner and asked for the submission of the life certificate.  According to the petitioners, the said certificate was submitted in April, 2012.  Thereafter, in May 2012, the pension was disbursed to them.  Aggrieved by such delay in payment of the disbursement of the pension, the complaint was filed by the pensioner.  The complaint was allowed and following directions were issued:

“In view of our above observations and findings, the complaint filed by the complainants is partly accepted with a direction to OP Nos.1 to 4 to pay interest to the complainants @ 9% per annum from the date the amount in question was due till the date of actual credit thereof in each case to their accounts alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/- within one month from the receipt of copy of this order failing which OP Nos.1 to 4 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on total sum payable as interest to all the complainants as also on litigation expenses as mentioned aforesaid from the date of order till realization.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room.”

3.      The said complaint was against the petitioner and respondent no.4 & 5.  Respondent no.4 is the Bank with whom the pensioners were having an account wherein the pension was required to be credited.  The defense of the Bank had been that since no disbursement of the pension was made by the petitioners, the same could not be credited to the pensioners account.  The stand of the petitioner was that since requisite document i.e. life certificate was not furnished by the pensioners, the pension could not be disbursed in their favor.

4.      Against the order of the District Forum whereby liability was jointly and severely fastened upon the petitioner and the respondent no.4, two appeals were filed both by petitioner and th