JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Counsel for the petitioner present. Reply filed by the Respondent. His presence is exempted, as prayed. 2. Smt. Manjulaben Kalidas Raval, the complainant worked as permanent worker with the Mafatlal Apparel Manufacturing Company situated at Nadiyad Dist. Kedha for the period from 1/3/1973 to 31/5/2001 i.e. for 28 years. The Regional Provident Fund Department merged subsequently Employees Family Pension Scheme 1971 which was existing under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act 1952 into Employees Pension Scheme 1995. 3. The complainant completed the age of 50 years and by virtue of para No. 12(7) of the Pension Scheme , the complainant opted for getting the monthly pension scheme at the reduced rate and submitted the form 10(B) to the opponent on 14.09.2001 and on 22.`10.2002, the opponent gave credit of Rs. 24,600/- for commutation and also Rs. 4,840/- for the Pension Arrears total being Rs. 28,448/- after causing delay of 240 days. The interest for the delayed period of 240 days was not paid. 4. The grievance of the complainant is that she was not given the pension in accordance with Law. She contended that she is entitled to get the pension in the sum of Rs. 903/- but the opponent has granted the original pension only of Rs. 793/-. She filed the complaint with the following prayers:- “(a) The Hon’ble Forum would be pleased to order the opponent to revise the P.P.O. No. GJ/AHD/21328 of the complainant duly granted and decide the receivable benefit of the member pension and pay the same since 14/9/01. (b) The Hon’ble Forum would be pleased to declare that the opponent has not paid the pension benefit amount to the complainant which the opponent should complete and pay the same within 30 days as per provision of para-17 (A) of Employees Pension Scheme and therefore the opponent has committed breach of its duty and also declare that the opponent is responsible for the delay caused after the aforesaid 30 days and be pleased to order the opponent to pay 12% penal interest p.a. to the complainant as per rules upon the benefit amount of the complainant. (c ) The Hon’ble Forum would be pleased to order the opponent to pay Rs. 10,000/- for mental torture and Rs.5,000/- for compensation of the loss and cost to the complainant. (d) Any other and further relief deemed just, fit and proper by the Hon’ble Court may be awarded to the complainant from the opponent.” 5. The plea set up by the complainant was that OP has wrongly calculated the pension under Clause 12(4) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and produced one table vide Ex.R-1 in support of her case. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and passed the following order:- “The present consumer complaint is allowed. The opponent is hereby directed to pay interest to the complainant for the period of 14/10/2001 to 22/10/2002 at the rate prevalent at relevant time. The opponent shall pay the cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to complainant for cost of this complaint. 6. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant filed the appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and passed the following order:- “1. The present appeal filed by the original complainant is allowed. 2. The order passed by the Hon’ble Additional Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City in complaint No.954/2008 on 30/5/2009 in respect to the main prayer calculating the less pension is hereby dismissed. But as the opponent has not filed the appeal against said judgment, the judgment and the order in respect to the interest and the cost of the complaint is kept uncharged. 3. It is ordered that the pension granted by the opponent to the complainant from 14/9/01 under Pension Scheme Para-12(4) is hereby set aside and in place thereof the order is passed to grant the pension under Pension Scheme Para-12 (3) and it is ordered to pay difference amount of Rs.164/- per month from the aforesaid date with 9% interest p.a. till its realization. 4. Considering about the late payment made to complainant and also the circumstances, the same is not allowed. 5. The opponent is ordered to pay Rs. 3,000/- for the cost of this appeal to the complainant.” 7. Aggrieved by that order the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Opposite Party. Counsel for the OP vehemently argued that they have rightly calculated the pension under Clause 12(4) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995. He however could not elaborate his point. 8. This argument is bereft of merit. It is clear that as per Clause 12 (3) of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 read with para No. 12 clause (6) clause (8), the pension of the complainant would start after 16.11.2005 and as such his monthly pension in the sum of Rs. 903/- would be given to the complainant. The length of service of the complainant is 22 years as on 01.06.2007, the complainant would attain the age of 58 years. The opponent is required to pay her pension @ Rs.903/- per month. Clause (3) is applicable in the case of an existing member in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension is after the 16th November 2005. The case of the complainant is fully covered under Clause (3) Clause (4) applies to those pensioners whose date of commencement of pension is between 16.11.2002 and 16.11.2005. The petitioner has calculated the pension U/s 12 (4) and 12 (3) respectively as follows:- Pension calculation of the complainant made by opponent 1. Pension of service after 16/11/95: 1758 x 6 = 10,548/- + 70 = 151 which is Rs.438/- as per para-12(4)(a) 2. Pension of subsequent service upto 15/11/95: 150x2.992=449 which is Rs.439/- as per para-12(4)(B) on completion of 58 years the original pension Rs.887/- is receivable. But as 887/- x 83.30=739/- The demanded as the age of 52 years. Pension is payable Calculation of the complainant for receivable pension: 1. Pension of service after 16/11/95 : 1758 x 6 = 10,548/- ÷70 = 151 Which is Rs. 635/- Minimum as per para-12 (3) (a) 2. Pension of subsequent service upto 15/11/95 : 150 x 2.992 = 449 which is Rs.439/- as per para -12(3)(b) Total pension from 1/6/2007 on 1084/- x 83.30=903/- Completion of 58 years of age original pension receivable” It is thus clear that Para 12 (3) is applicable in this case. 9. The pensioners should be dealt with kid gloves and sympathetically but in few cases they are harassed by the OP to no end. For such a small amount they are to contest cases upto the National Commission. Perhaps OP spends more amounts for the litigation than to settle the matter there and then. The Revision Petition is dismissed. Arrears it any, and additional costs of Rs. 10,000/-, be paid to the complainant through demand draft, within 45 days of the receipt of this order, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% till its realization in addition to orders rendered by the Fora below. | 
