This order shall dispose of the aforementioned four Revision Petitions.  Since the facts and the law point involved is the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.  We are taking the facts from Revision Petition No.1114/2011.

          Complainant/respondent, who is member of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, retired from FCI on superannuation and became entitled to monthly pension with effect from 20.9.2006.  Requisite 10D form was submitted on 4.8.2007 along with all the relevant papers with OP2 for fixation of monthly pension and was forwarded to OP3 on 10.8.2007.  Despite reminders dated 11.2.2009, 17.8.2009 and Notice dated 24.1.2010, the pension was not fixed.  Thus, being aggrieved, the complaint was filed.  The pension was ultimately fixed on 16.4.2010, i.e., after the filing of the complaint.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent for undue harassment and mental agony.  Rs.5,500/- were awarded as costs. 

Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, filed the appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 

Para-11 of the order of the State Commission reads as under :

We have gone though the file and heard the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the file shows that definitely there is a delay in the issuance of the PPO (Pension Payment Order) in favour of the complainant by the OPs as the complainant has forwarded the mandatory Form 10-D on 04.08.2007 along with all the relevant papers to OP No.2 for fixation of monthly pension with was forwarded by them to OP No.3 vide letter dated 10.08.2007 which remained pending with the OP No.3 for about 11 months as the same was sent to OP No.4 on 07.07.2008 vide Annexure R-2. As per the contention of the  OP No.3 that this delay is not due to the reason that OPs No.1 and 4 stopped accepting the pension papers of the employees on the ground that there was rush with them and they were unable to deal with the cases. For this reason, the case of the complainant for fixation of monthly pension was withheld by OP No.3. In support of their contention, the documentary proof has been placed on record by OP No.3 whereas nothing, has been placed on record by OP No.4 in contravention to this contention of OP No.3. In our opinion, the learned District Forum has rightly observed that there is a delay and that is due to the fault of OP No.4 (Employees Provident Fund Organization through APFC, Noida) and not to the fault of OPs No. 1 to 3 (APFC and FCI). Hence, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OP No.4 qua the complainant.  

We entirely agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  State Commission has come to the conclusion that the delay occurred because the petitioner had stopped accepting the pension papers of the employees because there was heavy rush and they were unable to deal with the papers.  Because of rush of pension papers, respondent could not be denied his pension for more than three yeas.  Petitioners have rightly been directed to compensate the respondent for mental agony, which the respondent suffered for three years for not getting his pension.  Dismissed.