ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANATHAPURAM vs ALI AKBAR

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a worker of a factory, from where he superannuated after attaining the age of 60 years. He had been a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme since 1.9.1972 upto the date of retirement. When the complainant made an application for Pension under the scheme, it was rejected by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had attained the age of 60 years on 30.9.1992 by date of birth being 30.9.1932 as per the records with the petitioner. Since the Pension Scheme came into force from 16.11.1995, hence as per date of birth with the petitioner, the complainant was not eligible for pension under the scheme. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of petitioner, a complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum who after hearing the parties and perusal of evidence and material on record allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to sanction pension from 1.1.1999 along with interest @ 12 p.a. on the arrears due. Rs. 500/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed. Hence this Revision Petition.

THE arguments for the learned Counsel for the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, that both the lower Forums had no ground to disbelieve the petitioner on the date of the birth of the complainant, as their record which they maintain in the normal course of business date of birth given is 30.9.1932 and secondly, in similar cases on an SLP being filed by the petitioners before the Hon''ble Supreme Court against the order of this Commission, they have stayed the operation of these orders, hence no action need to be taken in these cases. We see the material on record. It amazes us no end to see the functioning of the petitioner''s office. It is undisputed that the petitioner kept accepting the PF contributions from the complainant till 31.12.1998. Where was the delayed displayed ''knowledge'' of the fact that the complainant''s date of birth was 30.9.1932 and has attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 30.9.1992 ? If it was so then on what ground the contribution was being accepted for full six years after this date ? There are no answer to this point at any stage by the petitioner. It is pertinent to add that the complainant produced proof of his date of birth being 31.12.1938 by way of certificate of Registrar of Births and Deaths, which as per law is the final word. Both the lower Forums have examined the point relating to the date of birth carefully and accepted the plea of the complainant on the point. Keeping in view the facts of the case before us we see no ground to interfere with the orders passed by the State Commission. As to the second point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we see that the order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court does not come in our way of deciding this Revision Petition before us. We see no merit in the Revision Petition filed before us and is dismissed. No order as to costs.