EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION vs Narendra B. Deshmukh And Anr.

BEING aggrieved by order dated 5.6.2007, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short, ''State Commission'') petitioner has filed present revision petition. Brief facts are that respondent No. 1/complainant was in service of respondent No. 2 from 9.2.1973 to 21.4.1987. He resigned from the service on 21.4.1987. Respondent No. 2 had assigned P.P.F. A/c No. 539/04591 and Family Pension A/c No. MH -3795 -00985 to respondent No. 1 who had worked for a period of 14 years and 2 months. Respondent No. 2 deducted the amount of family pension from his salary. According to respondent No. 1, he is a member of Employees'' Family Pension Scheme of 1971 (for short, Scheme). After resignation, respondent No. 1 approached petitioner/opposite party No. 1 for family pension but it refused to give him family pension form. Hence, respondent No. 1 filed consumer complaint before Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (for short, ''District Forum'').

PETITIONER in its written statement has stated that Employees Pension Scheme was introduced in the year 1995 which was made applicable from 16.11.1995. Under paragraph 6(c) of this Scheme, option was given to the employee who ceased to a member of the Scheme of 1971, between 1.4.1993 and 15.11.1995 to become a member of this Scheme. This means that employee who ceased to be member of the Employees'' Family Pension Scheme 1971, between 1.4.1993 and 15.11.1995 can become a member of the new scheme. The scheme is not applicable to the employee who ceased to be an employee prior to April, 1993. New pension scheme is applicable from 16.11.1995 and option were given to the employees, who ceased to be in employment between 1.4.1993 to 15.11.1995. Respondent No. 1 has resigned/ceased to be in employment w.e.f. 21.4.1987 and as per para 6 of the said scheme, respondent No. 1 is not eligible to exercise the option to become member of the said scheme. District Forum, vide order dated 31.1.2007, partially allowed the complaint and directed that petitioner should give Form 10 -D to the respondent No. 1 and take further action for family pension. A sum of Rs. 1,000 was awarded as cost.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same.

BEING aggrieved by the order of State Commission, present revision petition has been filed. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents. None appeared for the respondents, as such they are proceeded ex parte.

WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

IT has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per para -6(b) of Notification dated 16.11.1995 regarding Employees'' Family Pension Scheme 1995, the same does not apply to respondent No. 1, Thus, impugned order liable to be set aside. State Commission in its order observed: Respondent No. 1 who has resigned on 21.4.1987 and who had received the benefit under 1971 Pension Scheme, is entitled to pension benefit under the new Pension scheme notified in the year 1995. It is the contention of the appellant that Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995 is not applicable to the employee ceased to be in the employment prior to 1.4.1993. We perused the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995. Notification dated 16.11.199, Sections (v), (vi) and (ix) are reproduced as under:

(v) "Eligible Member" means an employee who is eligible to join the Employees'' Pension Scheme;

(vi) "Existing Member" means an existing employee who is a Member of the Employees'' Family Pension Scheme, 1971;

(ix) "Member" means an employee who becomes a member of the Employees'' Pension Fund in accordance with the provisions of this Scheme.

Further Section 6(b) of the Employees'' Pension Scheme 1995 is also reproduced herein below:

Membership of the Employees'' Pension Scheme -

(b) who has been a member of the ceased Employees'' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 before the commencement of this Scheme from 16th November, 1995;

Therefore, it is clear from the above sections that Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995 is applicable to respondent No. 1 and he is entitled to Family Pension. Under the circumstances, order passed by the Forum below is appearing to be just and proper. We find no substance in appeal.

IT is an admitted fact that respondent No. 1 who was in service w.e.f. 9.2.1973, has resigned on 21.4.1987. Clause 6(b) of the Notification dated 16.11.1995 of the Employees'' Pension Scheme, 1995 clearly states that this scheme shall apply to every member who has been a member of the ceased Employees'' Family Pension Scheme 1971, before the commencement of the Scheme from 16.11.1995. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was member of ceased Employees'' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, as such he is fully entitled to family pension.

PRESENT revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is well settled mat powers of this Commission as a Revisional Court are very limited and have to be exercised only, if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Apex Court, in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co., : II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) : IV (2011) SLT 303 : 2011 (3) Scale 654, observed that: Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two Fora.

SINCE , both Fora below have given detailed and reasoned order which does not call for any interference nor the same suffers from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Hence, present petition is nothing but abuse of the process of law as the same is totally meritless and without any legal basis. Accordingly, present petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of "Consumer Welfare Fund" as per Rule 10A of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks from today. In case cost is not deposited within the prescribed period, then petitioner shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. till realization. List for compliance on 5.4.2013.