1. The two Revision Petitions vide R.P. No.2376 of 2023 and R.P. No.2377 of 2023 are filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner/OP-1 (“Petitioner”) against Mr. K.K. Chellappan & Anr. (“Respondents”). These petitions challenge the Order dated 16.01.2023 in First Appeal No. 401/2016 and First Appeal No. 960/2015 respectively, passed by the learned Kera State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (“State Commission”), which dismissed FA No. 960/2015 and allowed FA No. 401/2016 which challenged the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kollam (“District Forum”) order dated 31.10.2015 in Complaint No. 07/2013. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum. 3. Both RP 2376 of 2023 and RP 2377 of 2023 were filed with a delay of 117 days. However, in the interest of justice, the delay is condoned in both the Petitions. 4. Since the facts and questions of law involved in both Petitions are substantially similar, these Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. Nevertheless, for ease of reference, RP 2376 of 2023 shall be considered as the lead case, and the facts outlined below are derived from Consumer Complaint No. 07/2013. 5. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he was employed as a tapper in Venture Estate, Florence of Isfield Estate, under Harrisons' Malayalam Plantation, for 35 years. He retired from service on 18.08.2004. At the time of his retirement, he was earning a daily wage of Rs. 116.51/-. The complainant was a member of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 under the Employees Provident Fund (PF) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and thus was entitled to a pension. However, he was sanctioned a monthly pension of only Rs. 761/- from 18.08.2004. The complainant contended that this amount was based on erroneous calculations and was grossly inadequate given his long tenure of service. He approached OP-2, to seek rectification of the pension amount, but his grievance remained unaddressed. Subsequently, he sought assistance from the Labour Commissioner on 27.11.2011 and 09.12.2011 and on his directions, he appeared before the Adalat convened by the Employees PF Authority at Kollam on 01.02.2012 and 12.03.2012. Despite these efforts, no communication was received from OP-1 on its outcome. On 08.05.2012, he forwarded another letter seeking clarification but received no response. He then filed an application under RTI Act, 2005, requesting the details of Adalat’s decision. This application, initially rejected on 18.06.2012, was re-submitted on 25.06.2012 with a postal order. It was rejected again vide letter dated 24.07.2012. On 17.09.2012, he approached the Labour Commissioner with another plea. It was referred to PF Officer, Thiruvananthapuram on 04.10.2012. However, no action was taken. While it was admitted that the complainant was a member of the Employees PF Scheme from 01.11.1969 and opted for the Family Pension Scheme on 28.07.1971, they failed to rectify the errors in the pension calculation. He is losing Rs. 984/- per month since 18.08.2004. Despite representations, OPs refused to correct the mistakes, causing him significant financial loss, mental stress, and strain. This constituted deficiency in service and sought payment of due pension, with interest and compensation. 6. The OPs contested the complaint through separate written versions. OP-1 stated that the complainant retired in 2004 and was granted a pension of Rs. 761/- per month from 18.08.2004, as per the Pension Payment Order dated 14.10.2004. No objections were raised by him until 14.02.2012. The complaint, filed by him on 03.01.2014 was time-barred under Section 24(A) of the Act, 1986. OP-1 admitted the complainant’s membership in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme since 1969 and the Family Pension Scheme since 1971, later transitioning to 1995 Pension Scheme. His pension was calculated based on service details, including breaks and non-contributory periods, resulting in 8 years of pensionable service. A reduction of 4% pension was applied as he retired at 56 years as against 58 years, fixing the pension at Rs. 761/-. After commutation of one-third of the pension, his monthly entitlement reduced to Rs. 507/-. The pension was determined as per the scheme, and no enhancement was entitled. OP-2, asserted full compliance with the obligations under Employees' Provident Funds and Misc Provisions Act, 1952, and the relevant Scheme. All contributions due were paid. The complainant had no cause of action. The responsibility for calculating the pension under the Pension Scheme rested solely with OP-1, and grievances, if any, could only be directed against OP-1. OP-2 claimed to be an unnecessary party to the proceedings. 7. The learned District Forum vide Order dated 31.10.2015, allowed the complaint in part with the following finding: “On considering the above facts, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite Party 1. As far as opposite party 2 is concerned DW1 had not deposed that 2nd opposite party had contravened any duties mandated for the Employer under the Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, or the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. There is no evidence that notices have ever been issued by the 1st opposite party authorities to this opposite party for contravention of any duties mandated under the aforementioned Act and Scheme. More over complainant also did not adduce any specific evidence against this opposite party to show their deficiency in service. Considering the entire evidence we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party2. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The 1st opposite party is directed to pay the amount after deducting 3% from Rs.1695/-, as pension to the complainant from the due date and in future. For arrears he will be entitled for interest at 12%. The amounts are to be paid within 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 15% from the date of this order. The 1st opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the proceedings.” 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Complainant filed First Appeal No. 401/2016. The State Commission vide Order dated 24.03.2023 allowed the Appeal with the following observations “In the result, these appeals are disposed of as below: (a) Appeal No.960/2015 fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (b) Appeal No.401/2016 is allowed. The actual pension due and payable to-the appellant herein is fixed as Rs.1,837/- subject to a deduction of 3% towards Short Service Pension. The pension at the above rate shall be due and payable to the appellant herein from the date of his retirement and in future. The arrears shall be paid to him with interest @12% per
annum. The pension with all arrears shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement failing which the
entire amount would carry interest @15% per annum from the date of this order. (c)Both the appeals are disposed of as above. No costs.” 9. Dissatisfied by the Order of the State Commission, OP 1 filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer: (A) This Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to admit and allow
the present Petition; (B) Set aside the impugned Order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the State Commission allowing the Appeal No.401/2016. (C) Declare that the calculation done by the Petitioner is in accordance with Scheme Provisions. (D) Direct the Respondent No. 1 to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Petitioner; (E) Such other and further reliefs or orders or direction, as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice;” 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner/OP asserted that the complainant had joined the Employees’ Pension Scheme in 1995, having earlier been a member of the Employee Provident Fund Scheme since 1969 and the Family Pension Scheme from 1971. After resigning in 2004, a pension of Rs. 761/- was sanctioned. It was later reduced to Rs. 507/- as 1/3rd portion was deducted after commutation. He argued that the State Commission erred by misinterpreting statutory provisions and failed to contemplate that the amount against Table B for the period from 16.11.1995 to date of attainment of 58 years was to be taken for calculating past service benefit, rather than the total length of service. It improperly relied on isolated salary slips rather than statutory records. It ignored the statutory limit of Rs. 2500/- for wages as of 15.11.1995. Additionally, he contended that the Commission failed to consider that PF contributions were of specific salary components. The Commission disregarded discrepancies in his claims, including allegations of lower pensions compared to co-workers. Overall, the State Commission’s order led to miscarriage of justice. 11. The Complainant reiterated the facts of the complaint. He contended that OP-1 had failed to demonstrate any error in the impugned order of the State Commission, either in its appreciation of evidence or application of legal principles, as required under Section 21(b) of the 1986. Referring to the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022, it was argued that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission was narrowly confined and could only be exercised when the parameters of Section 21(b) were satisfied, which was not the case here. Additionally, he argued that OP 1 did not provide an adequate explanation for the delay in filing the revision petition, further undermining its maintainability. Ld. counsel asserted that the State Commission, after reappraising the facts and evidence, had correctly determined that the Complainant’s last drawn salary was Rs.3,990, that his service exceeded 25 years, and had properly applied the multiplier of 7.117 from Table-B under Para 12(3)(1)(b) of the pension scheme to calculate the pension. He contended that OP 1’s claims regarding breaks in service and non-contributory periods were unsupported by evidence and had been rightly rejected by the State Commission. Consequently, as the petitioner failed to point out any substantive error in the findings of the State Commission, the revision petition was devoid of merit and deserved dismissal. 12. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels for both the parties. 13. The issue pertains to fixation of pension to the complainant who is a member of the Employees’ Pension Scheme in 1995 who was a member of the Employee Provident Fund Scheme since 1969 and the Family Pension Scheme from 1971. After he resigned in 2004, a pension of Rs. 761/- was sanctioned. After commutation of 1/3rd portion of it, It was reduced to Rs. 507/-. It is the contention of the complainant that the State Commission, after reappraising the facts and evidence, had correctly determined that the complainant’s last drawn salary was Rs.3,990, his service exceeding 25 years and correctly applied the multiplier of 7.117 from Table-B under Para 12(3)(1)(b) of the pension scheme to determine the pension. The alleged break in service, and non-contributory periods remained unsubstantiated and thus were rejected by the State Commission. On the other hand, the OPs asserted that the State Commission erred by misinterpreting statutory provisions and failed to appreciate that the amount against Table B for the period from 16.11.1995 to date of attainment of 58 years was to be taken for calculating the past service, rather than the total length of service. As per OP, the State Commission improperly relied on some isolated salary slips rather than statutory records and ignored the statutory limit of Rs. 2500/- for wages as of 15.11.1995. It also failed to appropriately consider the PF contributions and discrepancies in his claims. While the petitioner's claims primarily challenge factual determinations by the State Commission, the same are beyond the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b). Also, the State Commission’s calculations appear aligned with Para 12(3) of the EPS, 1995 and corroborated by the respondent’s salary evidence. The Petitioner's/OP reliance on partial records and unsubstantiated breaks in service is insufficient to challenge the State Commission’s order. 14. It is well settled position in law that the scope for Revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 and now under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. After due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the State Commission order, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Act. I place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269. 15. In addition, Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. SBI & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 432 OF 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022 observed as follows:- “9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....” 16. Similarly, in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. 17. Based on the above deliberations and precedents, I do not find merit in the present Revision Petitions No.2376 and 2377 of 2023 and the same are, therefore, dismissed. 18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs. 19. All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. | 
