The complainant joined the service of M/s Mahindra & Mahindra ..2/- -2- Limited, petitioner in RP No.1215/2019 on 01.09.1989. His services were terminated on 08.04.1994 before he could complete five years of service. He approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking payment of pension and commuted pension or in the alternative, the contribution made by him under the superannuation scheme of which he was a member with interest on that contribution. The employer of the complainant LIC of India as well as the superannuation scheme were impleaded as opposite parties in the complaint. (2) The complaint was resisted by the employer of the complainant as well as on behalf of the scheme. It was inter-alia stated in their written version that the complainant having not completed five years of service he was not entitled to refund of the contribution made by him under the scheme. The claim for payment of the pension and commuted pension was also disputed on the ground that the complainant had not completed the qualifying service required for the said benefits. Two primarily objections were also taken by them, the first being that he was not a consumer and that the second being that the complaint was barred by limitation. (3) The District Forum directed the petitioners here in to refund the ..3/- -3- entire outstanding contribution made by the complainant as on 08.04.1994 alongwith simple interest on that amount @ 9% per annum, compensation quantified at Rs.5000/- and the cost of Rs.1,000/- as mental agony. (4) Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioners herein filed a joint appeal. The State Commission partly modified the order passed by the District Forum by directing refund of an amount of Rs.29,725/- alongwith interest as against the amount of Rs.48,498/- directed to be refunded by the District Forum with interest. Being aggrieved the petitioners are before this Commission by way of these separate revision petitions. (5) Notice of the revision petitions was issued to the complainant and was served upon him. He has not appeared in response to the notice issued to him but has sent written arguments seeking dismissal of the revision petition. (6) The learned counsel for the petitioners had drawn my attention to Clause 16 of the scheme which to the extent it is relevant reads as under : “ON THE MEMBER LEAVING THE EMPLOYER’S SERVICE VOLUNTARILY OR ON TERMINATION OF HIS SERVICES BY EMPLOYER : In the event of the Member leaving the Employer’s service voluntarily or if his services are terminated by the Employer for any reason other than those -4- covered by Rule 20 (d) provided the Member has completed at least 5 years of service with the Employer, such Member shall not be entitled to receive pension payments under the Scheme. On cessation of the Member’s Service in either of the aforesaid contingencies the Trustees shall surrender to the Corporation the Annui/Annuities, effected on such Members’s life, realise the surrender Value thereof, deduct therefrom the appropriate amount of Income-Tax thereon and then pay to the Member the balance of such Surrender Value and pay the amount of Income-Tax so deducted to the credit of the Government of India. The Trustees shall also surrender to the Corporation the Annuity or Annuties, effected on the life of any Member who becomes disentitled to receive any benefits thereunder and transfer the Surrender Value thereof to the “Surplus Account”. (7) On a careful consideration of the above referred Clause it appears to me that an employee is entitled to the Surrender Value of the Annuities effected on his life only if he complete five years of service with the employer provided that his services are not terminated for a reason specified in Rule 20(d). In other words, if the employee has not completed 5 years of service or if his services are terminated, for a reason in Rule 20 (d) he is not entitled to the surrender value of the annuities taking on the life of such a person and the same are to be transferred to the Surplus Account maintained under the scheme. Since the complainant had not put in five years of service, by the time his services were terminated he is not entitled to receive the surrender value of the annuities taken on his -5- life. Therefore, the order passed by the fora below cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. (8) During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner Mahindra & Mahindra Limited stated on instructions that though the complainant is not entitled to the Surrender Value of the Annuities, the petitioner company as a gesture, goodwill and a welfare measure it being compassionate employer is ready and willing to pay Rs.75,000/- to the complainant. The said payment according to the learned counsel for the company shall be made within six weeks from today. The revision petitions stands disposed of accordingly. | 
