ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs B Nagappa

THESE Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), have been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bellary, Karnataka, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints, against a common order dated 03.03.2014, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeals No. 13 to 16 of 2014. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeals, preferred by the Petitioner herein, questioning the correctness and legality of the order, dated 26.11.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bellary (for short "the District Forum") in Complaints No. 129, 130, 131 and 136 of 2013, preferred by the Respondents/Complainants. The District Forum, while partly allowing the Complaints, had directed the Petitioner to : (i) re -fix the pension of all the Complainants for the service rendered by them under "past service" and "actual service" separately, in accordance with the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995, as applicable to individual Complainants, by giving weightage of two years; (ii) issue revised Pension Payment Order; (iii) pay pension from the date as applicable to each case; (iv) pay arrears of pension with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Complaints till realization; and (v) pay ?1000/ - towards compensation for deficiency in service alongwith ?1000/ - as litigation expenses to each of the Complainants.

SUCCINCTLY put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petitions are that: the Respondents/Complainants, employees of different establishments, were the members of the Employees'' Family Pension Scheme, 1971. On introduction of the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995, w.e.f. 16.11.1995, they opted for the same and accordingly their earlier contributions were transferred to the 1995 Scheme, in which they contributed till their retirement. As per the new Scheme, the monthly pension was to be calculated for two different periods separately, i.e. past service and present service. While the "past service" refers to the service rendered in the previous Employees'' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, the "present service" refers to the service rendered after the introduction of the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995. Under the 1995 Scheme, the beneficiaries who were to superannuate on attaining the age of 58 years or/and had rendered 20 years'' service, were to be given two years weightage, while calculating their pensionable service. Since the Respondents/Complainants had rendered more than 20 years service, they were entitled for the said weightage. However, the Petitioner, while calculating the pension amount payable to them, failed to take into consideration their past and present service and consequently did not follow the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Scheme. Aggrieved, the Respondents filed their separate Complaints before the District Forum, praying for directions to the Petitioner to : (i) revise the monthly pension by extending the minimum assured benefits both in respect of past and present service separately as well as weightage of two years; (ii) pay arrears alongwith 12% interest per annum; (iii) give annual relief from the year of retirement and to pay the arrears alongwith 12% interest per annum; (iv) continue to pay the monthly pension as per the Scheme in revised scale; and (v) pay ?10,000/ - towards litigation costs and compensation for the mental agony.

ON consideration of the evidence adduced before it by the parties and after going through the provisions of the 1971 Scheme and the 1995 Scheme, the District Forum held that the Respondents/Complainants were entitled to the re -fixation of their pension for the service rendered by them under "past service" and "actual service" separately, by extending 2 years weightage to their pensionable service and the Petitioner was liable to settle the pension accordingly. The District Forum also observed that non -application of the provisions while fixing the pension of the Respondents/ Complainants was against the provisions of the Scheme, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner. Accordingly, partly allowing the Complaints, the District Forum issued the afore -noted directions to the Petitioner. Being unsuccessful before the State Commission in the afore -noted Appeals, the Petitioner is before us in the present Revision Petitions.

IT is pointed out by the office that these Revision Petitions are barred by limitation; inasmuch as there is a delay of 330 days in filing the same. Since the present Revision Petitions arise out of a common impugned order and identical applications have been filed for condonation of the said delay, for the sake of convenience, we propose to examine the application filed in Revision Petition No. 1231 of 2015. In paragraph 2 of the said application, a short and crisp explanation for the delay furnished reads as under: "2. That the certified copy of the impugned common order dated 03.03.2014 of the Hon''ble State Commission was delivered on 11.03.2014, thereafter the file of the said matter was placed before the legal department of the Petitioner Organization, the officials of the Petitioner decided to seek the opinion of their panel advocates for further course of action, the panel advocates after perusing the file of the case thoroughly opined that the Revision be filed before the Hon''ble National Commission, thereafter the file of the said case was sent to the Regional Office of the Petitioner in Delhi and the officials of the Petitioner in Delhi called for the opinion of their panel advocates in Delhi and thereafter the decision was finally taken to file the present Revision Petition before the Hon''ble National Commission and thus the exercise of decision making for filing the instant Revision Petition consumed a reasonable time and, therefore, there is a delay of 324 days in filing the present Revision Petition."

WE have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner on the question of delay.

IN our view, the explanation furnished is vague to the core, and far from being satisfactory. Admittedly, the certified copy of the impugned order had been delivered to the Petitioner on 11.03.2014, yet it took almost a year for the Petitioner to file the present Revision Petitions. From a bare perusal of the afore -extracted explanation, it is manifest that besides being conspicuously silent about the date -wise processing of the file at Petitioner''s end, no sincere efforts had been made by the Petitioner to file the Revision Petitions within the statutory period of 90 days, as provided under Regulation 14 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. After a prolonged and lax decision making process, the Petitioner has ultimately filed the present Revision Petitions on 05.05.2015. However, by this time, these Petitions were barred by limitation, as there was inordinate delay of 330 days in filing the same. A mechanical explanation, viz., that after receipt of a copy of the impugned order, the file was placed before the Legal Department; after perusing the file the panel Advocate opined that the Revision Petitions be filed before this Commission; thereafter the file was sent by the Petitioner to its Regional Office at Delhi; and the exercise of decision making for filing the instant Revision Petitions has consumed a reasonable time, is a self -serving explanation, and we do not find it to be sufficient to condone an inordinate delay of 330 days in filing the Revision Petitions. We have no hesitation in observing that the explanation is a classic example of an indifferent and lax attitude of a government instrumentality.

THE question of delay by the Government Departments in prosecuting the cases has been engaging the attention of the Courts. Recently, in Postmaster General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr., 2012 3 SCC 563, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under : "28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

In our view, it is right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

BEARING in mind the afore -stated facts and the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2011 14 SCC 578 to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained, we are not inclined to condone an inordinate delay of 330 days in filing of the present Revision Petitions, more so, when condonation of such an unexplained and long delay in cases involving retired employees, for whom each extra rupee matters a lot, would amount to subjecting them to further harassment.

IN this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Petitioner has failed to make out a ''sufficient cause'' for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the present Revision Petitions and, accordingly, we decline to condone the said delay.

EVEN on merits of these Revision Petitions, we find that the issue raised in these Revision Petitions already stands concluded by a catena of orders of this Commission, particularly by order dated 09.04.2013 in Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur Vs. Basappa Ningappa Kaltippi, Revision Petition No.784 of 2013, relied upon by the State Commission in the impugned order, as well as by order dated 28.07.2014 in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bellary Vs. Mohammad Khasim, Revision Petition No. 2864 of 2014 and other connected matters. In Mohammad Khasim a Coordinate Bench of this Commission, on examination of the benevolent provisions of the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995, with reference to the earlier Schemes, viz., Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 and Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971, has held that the Complainants would be entitled to the weightage of two years in terms of Sub -Para (2) of Para (10) of the 1995 Scheme and accordingly dismissed the Revision Petitions preferred by the Petitioner.

CONSEQUENTLY , the Revision Petitions are dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay as well as on merits.