REGIONAL P.F. COMMISSIONER, KERALA vs P.V.PRAKASAM

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 the petitioner.

BRIEF facts of the case are that admittedly the complainant was a cleaner in Department of the Cooperative Spinning Mill, Chattannoor, Kerala and was a member of EPF Scheme. In 1998 the complainant became a victim of chronic Rhimitis with asthma and could not work in the environment of spinning factory and resigned from service on 20.8.1998 which was accepted on 30.11.1998. Employer forwarded his application for disablement pension under EPS 1995, which was not granted till filing of the complaint. Alleging deficiency in service, a complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant Smt. P.V. Prakasan. The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint. As the petitioner, during the pendency of the complaint had sanctioned pension @ Rs. 205/- p.m. which was not as per Rules, the District Forum while allowing the complaint directed the petitioner to revise the disablement pension as per scheme of EPS, 1995 and to pay arrears due if any with interest @ 12% p.a. Compensation of Rs. 1,000/- and cost of Rs. 500/- were also awarded. On an appeal filed by the petitioner, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum, with a clarificatory direction to the petitioner to revise the pension with due regard to paras 12(c), 13(i) and 15(i) of EPS, 1995, hence this revision petition. We heard the arguments and perused the material on record. We find the proposition to interfere with the order of the two lower forums as an impossibility. After all what they has directed is to fix pension as per provision of law on the subject. Nobody could wish otherwise. It is a pity that it took two years for the petitioner to fix pension for a poor disabled worker - confirmed by a Medical Board - and yet they have to keep the poor pension engaged in litigation before consumer forums. This is the last thing a person should expect in a welfare state from a body charged with the responsibility to protect the interest of the poor workers.

The orders of both the lower Forums are directions to fix the pension as per provision of scheme on the subject. We fail to understand as to what could be the difficulty in this regard.

WE see no ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. The petition lacks merit - hence dismissed. No order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.