RAMANAYAK TIWARI vs REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.08.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 12/1010 - Regional PF Commissioner (North) Anr. Vs. Ramanayak Tiwari by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum was modified.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was an employee of the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (VSNL), who was entitled to pension on 15.7.2007 after attaining the age of 58 years, but was released pension by OP/respondent from 9.9.2009. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission and claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/ - and cost of Rs.10,000/ -. OP contested complaint and submitted that pension was released on 1.7.2008 along with arrears for the period from 15.7.2007 to 31.8.2008. It was further submitted that as per law, pension should have been released within a period of 30 days and in case of delay, OP was liable only to pay interest for the delayed period i.e., five months and fourteen days @ 12% p.a. and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.25,000/ - as compensation and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation to the complainant. Appeal filed by the OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and order granting compensation of Rs.25,000/ - was set aside against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard petitioner in person and Counsel for the respondent and perused record.

PETITIONER submitted that District Forum rightly granted compensation of Rs.25,000/ - and learned State Commission without any justification set aside compensation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as per law, only 12% p.a. interest was payable and learned State Commission rightly set aside compensation; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

SECTION 17A of the Employees '' Pension Scheme, 1995 provides grant of 12% p.a. interest in case of delay of more than 30 days in release of pension. Leaned District Forum while granting interest for the delayed period further allowed compensation of Rs.25,000/ - and learned State Commission rightly allowed appeal partly and set aside compensation of Rs.25,000/ -. When interest was allowed as per provisions of the Act, compensation was not required to be granted and I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that interest for six months has already been granted in excess and respondent has paid more than Rs.12,000/ - by way of interest in excess of the liability and in such circumstances, prayed for dismissal of revision petition. Apparently, interest was to be paid only for the delayed period of five months and fourteen days, but interest has been allowed for more than this period and has already been given to petitioner and in such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to grant of any compensation. Cost of litigation has already been awarded to him by District Forum which has been upheld by State Commission.

IN the light of above discussion, revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cost.