JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The parties are up in arms over the question of pension. It is always desirable that the pensioners should be treated with kid gloves but it is unfortunate that in our times, they are exasperated by senseless delay. The Department is always interested in wasting more money and their time, than it is involved in such like frivolous litigations. 2. This common order will decide 27 cases detailed above. After having lost the cases before the District Forum and appeals before the State Commission, these revision petitions have been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, OP. There is delay of 85 days, in RP 765/2013, 1 day delay each in RP 1008/2013, RP 1009/2013, RP No. 1010/2013, RP No. 1011/2013, respectively, 6 days delay each in RP 1064/2013, RP No. 1065/2013, RP No. 1066/2013, RP No. 1067/2013, RP No. 1068/2013, respectively, 7 days delay each in RP No. 1118/ 2013, RP No. 1119/2013, RP No. 1120/2013, RP No. 1121/2013, and delay of 8 days each in RP No. 1126/2013, RP No.1127/2013, RP No. 1128/2013, RP No.1129/2013 and RP No. 1130/2013, respectively. In the interest of justice and for the reasons mentioned in the applications for condonation of delay, we hereby condone the said delay. 3. The facts of these cases are similar and similar question of law is involved, therefore, we are deciding all these cases, in this single judgment. 4. Facts of the case are taken from RP No. 765/2013. As a matter of fact, the OP Assistant Provident Commissioner, Raichur, through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi has picked up a conflict with the ex-employees of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (in short, hereinafter referred to as SRTC. All the 26 employees/complainants retired on attaining the age of superannuation. This is an indisputable fact that the complainants continued to be in service under their employer prior to the year 1971. They were the members of the EmployeesFamily Pension Scheme, so also the members of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The OP issued a circular wherein the past service, i.e., service from to 15.11.1995 was shown as 24 years. Pensionable service from to 16.11.1995 to 2 years. The relevant portion of the circular runs as follows :- P-2 C.C.No. 77/10 P.P.O. No. 4408 01. Past service (service from to 15.11.1995) 24 years 02. Pensionable service (service from 16.11.95 to 02 years 03. Age as on 16.11.1995 55 years 04. Wages as on 15.11.1995 Above Rs.2,500/- 05. Pensionable salary Rs.5,000/- a). Past service benefit (as per table under Para 12, if the service is 24 years and salary is above Rs.2,500/- Rs.170/- Factor (Age as on 15.11.1995 Less : Years to complete 58 years 58 years 55 less than 03 years Rs.1,269/- .. . 5. The grouse of the complainant was that OP, while fixing the pension did not take into account, the entire period of service and OP did not take into consideration the weightage of 2 years while calculating the pension. They alleged that pension awarded to them was on the lower side. They felt deficiency in service and accordingly filed complaints. 6. The District Forum allowed the complaints filed by the complainants. aggrieved by that order, the OPs filed appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 7. We have heard the counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that OPs have calculated the pension as per rules and Scheme. It was argued that since the complainants have not served or rendered their service for more than 20 years and that too, for pensionable service, they are not entitled to weightage of two years. They have calculated the pension of complainants in accordance with the Scheme. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the fora below have not applied their mind and the relevant rules were not discussed. He invited our attention to another circular, which reads as follows:- s per the paragraph No.12(3) r/w 10 (2) of the EmployeesPension Scheme, 1995, pension shall be aggregate of the pension for the period from 16.11.1995 and the pension for the past service 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that ast servicecannot be counted and the complainants cannot be given the benefit of weightage of two years. 10. All these arguments are not convincing. Both the above said circulars must be read in conjunction with each other. It clearly means that ast serviceshall be counted. The authorities have to consider the aggregate of the AST SERVICE PLUS the period from 16.11.1995 onwards. The complainants who have joined the service before 1971 have got more than 24 years. Consequently, they are entitled to get weightage of two years. As a matter of fact, the complainants have rendered more than 26 yearsof service. Consequently, they are entitled to the benefit of weightage of two years. The complainants are entitled for two yearsweightage under Rule 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and their pension has to be fixed accordingly. 11. The counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority reported in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98, however, its relevant portion goes against it, which runs as follows:- e cannot accept the argument that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, being Central Government, cannot be held to be rendering ervicewithin the meaning and scheme of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, under the Act and the Scheme discharges statutory functions for running the Scheme. It has not, in any way, been delegated with the sovereign powers of the State so as to hold it as a Central Government, being not the authority rendering the erviceunder the Act. The Commissioner is a separate and distinct entity. It cannot legally claim that the facilities provided by the chemewere not erviceor that the benefits under the Scheme being provided were free of charge. The definition of onsumerunder the Act includes not only the person who hires the ervicesfor consideration but also the beneficiary, for whose benefit such services are hired. Even if it is held that administrative charges are paid by the Central Government and no part of it is paid by the employee, the services of the Provident Fund Commissioner in running the Scheme shall be deemed to have been availed of for consideration by the Central Government for the benefit of employees who would be treated as beneficiaries within the meaning of that word used in the definition of onsumer This court in Spring Meadows Hospital V. Harjot Ahluwalia, 7 (1998) 4 SCC: JT (1998) 2 SC 620, to which one of us (Saghir Ahmad, J) was a party has already held that the onsumermeans a person who hires or avails of any services and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails the services. The Act gives a comprehensive definition of onsumerwho is the principal beneficiary of the legislation but at the same time in view of the comprehensive definition of the term onsumereven a member of the family of such onsumer was held to be having the status of onsumer 12. The namby pamby pleas raised by the counsel for the petitioner do not cut much ice. All the revision petitions are meritless and the same are, therefore, dismissed, with costs of Rs.2,000/- each to each of the complainants, within three months from today, else it will carry interest at the rate of 10% p.a.