REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER vs PURANMAL GHASIRAM BHAVsAR

Delay condoned.

Challenge in this Revision Petition, by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, is to the order dated 17-01-2014 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ahmedabad (for short "the State Commission") in Dispute No.1221 of 2010.

By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 30-11-2009, passed by Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City (for short "the District Forum) in CC No.483 of 2009. By the said order, while accepting the objection raised on behalf of the Petitioner herein about the maintainability of the complaint, disputing the fixation of the pension, which the Complainant was entitled to, the District Forum had directed the Complainant to approach the Competent Officer for redressal of his grievance. On the contrary, the State Commission has come to the conclusion that having regard to the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund 1971 and 1995 Schemes, any dispute relating to the fixation of the Pension, under the said Schemes, would fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act). Resultantly, accepting the Complaint, the State Commission has directed the Petitioner herein to pay to the Complainant differential amount of arrears with effect from 01-07-2007, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as also the penal interest under Para 17(a) of the said Scheme, at the prevailing rate.

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has vehemently submitted that apart from the fact that the State Commission has erred in holding that a dispute pertaining to fixation of pension of an employee under the aforesaid Schemes does fall within the domain of the Consumer Fora, the State Commission has also committed a material illegality in accepting the stand of the Complainant in toto, without examining the claim on merits, with reference to the relevant provisions of the said Schemes.

Per contra , learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant has strenuously urged that since the Petitioner has not controverted the averments made in Paragraph 3 of the complaint, wherein the precise details of the claim made by the Complainant has been given, the State Commission was not called upon to examine the claim on merits.

Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the facts at hand, we are of the view that insofar as the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Insurance Company on the maintainability of the Complaint is concerned, in the light of the settled position in law on the point by a catena of decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the objection has been rightly rejected by the State Commission. Nonetheless, we find substance in the plea urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the State Commission should have examined the claim on merits, with reference to the provisions relevant for fixation of the pension. It is evident from a bare reading of the order impugned in this Revision Petition that while issuing the afore noted directions to the Petitioner, the State Commission not examined the claim on merits.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the Appeal, giving rise to the present case, is restored to the Board of the State Commission for determination of the exact amount of the pension, the Complainant is entitled to under the afore noted two Schemes.

Since the Complaint was filed as far back as in the year 2009, we request the State Commission to take final decision on the said issue as expeditiously as practicable and, in any case, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.