CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs R C BHARDWAJ

-THESE two revision petitions arise from a common order passed by the State Commission, dismissing the appeal filed by Central Board of Trustees (Petitioner in R. P. No. 2649 of 2004 ).

VERY briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint by the complainant R. C. Bhardwaj (Petitioner in R. P. No. 141 of 2005) were that the complainant had retired from the service of the third opposite party before the District Forum, namely, M/s. Remington Rand of India Ltd. , on 12. 2. 1998. It was the case of the complainant before District Forum that his Provident Fund A/c amounting to Rs. 2,08,901. 32 was not given to him despite repeated requests both to the Trustees, Remington Rand Employees Provident Institution as also M/s. Remington Rand of India Limited. In the meantime, Remington Rand Employees Provident Institution was taken over by the Central Provident Fund. Since the matter was not getting settled and he was not getting his dues, a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the three opposite parties before the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the parties at considerable length directed the opposite parties before the District Forum to pay a sum of Rs. 208,901. 32 or such other higher amount which might be due towards the Provident Fund to him along with interest @ 9% p. a. from 12. 2. 1998 till the date of payment, his monthly pension as might be worked out and the accumulated arrears of the monthly pension shall also carry interest @ 9% p. a. from 12. 2. 1998, compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs. 2,000 towards litigation costs. These amounts were to be paid within 90 days of the date of this order failing which O. P. 1 shall pay interest @ 9% till the date of payment on two amounts ordered above. Aggrieved by this order, only the first opposite party, namely, Central Board of Trustees of the Central Provident Fund filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000. Aggrieved/dissatisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, both the parties have filed two separate revision petitions before us. We heard the parties at length and perused the material on record. Revision Petition No. 141 of 2005

This revision petition has been filed before us for awarding compensation of Rs. 5 lakh as also award of interest at the same rate as prevailing and as payable under the Provident Fund Rules amended from time-to-time.

IT is a matter of record that against the original order passed by the District Forum, no appeal had been filed by the petitioner/complainant before the State Commission, thus, clearly indicating that the complainant was satisfied with the relief granted by the District Forum. Since the State Commission''s order does not modify the order passed by the District Forum, in these circumstances, the complainant Shri R. C. Bhardwaj is estopped from filing revision petition before us, hence we see no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. On 9. 12. 2004, this Commission had passed the following order: "admit. Issue notice in revision petition and stay application returnable on 17th May, 2005. Amount of Rs. 2,08,901. 32 with interest @ 9% p. a. will be paid by the petitioner to the respondent on furnishing indemnity bond for refund of this amount in event of this revision petition being accepted. Subject to payment of this amount, the operation of orders passed by the Fora below shall remain suspended till next date. Dasti. "

AGAIN on 17. 5. 2005, the following order was passed by this Commission: "learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Central Board of Trustees states that if complainant furnishes requisite Forums namely Forms 19 and 10d prescribed under EPF Scheme Fund Family Pension Scheme petitioner Board would pay the amount within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the said Forms along with the interest prescribed under the schemes. As against this, complainant states that he has submitted the Forms three times to the concerned authority. Whatever may be the position for the time being complainant has to furnish Forms as indicated above within a period of seven days from today. Learned Counsel for the Central Board of Trustees states that the aforesaid Forms should be submitted to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi. "

In pursuance of this, the petitioner, Central Board of Trustees reported compliance but it was contested by the respondent/complainant R. C. Bhardwaj that it is not as per calculations. Both the parties were directed to file their calculation sheet on record. We have very carefully gone through this calculation and find that whereas the Central Board of Trustees have made their calculation based on the amount claimed by the complainant in his complaint, i. e. Rs. 2,08,901. 32 the complainant in his calculation sheet has started the calculation from Rs. 2,20,475. 23 The cumulative effect of this is that petitioner is asking further relief of Rs. 31,459 over and above the amount already given by the petitioner to the complainant. We have gone through the calculation sheet filed by the petitioner Central Board of Trustees and find no infirmity in the calculation made by the petitioner, wherein the due amount, as also the interest payable, is as per rules and regulations, and the amount has been paid to the complainant on four different dates. We find that this calculation is in order and the calculation arrived at by the complainant is erroneous for the simple reason that this initial calculation, i. e. the starting amount is more than the amount claimed in the complaint, which has been subject matter of dispute as reflected in the complaint as also the appeal and he never took any exception to this before the District Forum.

IN view of above, we find that the claim of the complainant has been fully satisfied.

HOWEVER, in view of the fact that the complainant had to run from pillar to post to get his dues starting from the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission as also the mental agony caused to get his dues, the complainant needs to be compensated for this and in view of this, we direct the petitioner Central Board of Trustees to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 25,000, in all, towards compensation and cost. The orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission on stand modified in above terms. Both the revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. Revision Petitions disposed of.