JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The complainant/respondent was an employee of M/s Shree Ambica Mills Ltd. and he served the aforesaid company till the mill was closed on 06.09.89.  He was a member of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 which later on came to be replaced by Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.  Seeking benefit of the 1995 Scheme, he filled up Form D in April, 2003.  The said request however, was not accepted. The form was later on accepted on 24.08.2009.  However, no benefit of pension was given to him. He therefore, approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint claiming that he was entitled to pension as per the 1995 Scheme.

2.     The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which claimed that the complainant had left the services much before 01.04.1993 which was the cut-off date for becoming member of the 1995 Scheme and therefore, the benefit of 1995 Scheme was not available to him.  It was also claimed that no contribution under the 1995 Scheme was received, the complainant having already left the services on 06.09.1989 and that was the reason Form 10-D was returned. The District Forum relied upon the decision of this Commission in RP No. 3242 of 2007 The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Shri Narendra B. Deshmukh & Anr., holding that the complainant was entitled to benefit of the 1995 Scheme.  The District Forum therefore, directed payment of pension to the complainant as per the 1995 Scheme w.e.f. 24.08.2009 alongwith interest, compensation quantified at Rs.5,000/- and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.2,000/-.

3.     Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal.  However, the only ground urged before the State Commission was that the complaint was barred by limitation. The said ground however, was not accepted and the appeal was consequently dismissed.  Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

4.     As far as the plea of limitation is concerned, deprivation of pension being a continuing cause of action, there is no merit in the plea that the complaint filed by the complainant was barred by limitation.  The said plea therefore, was rightly negated by the State Commission.

5.     The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant having already left the services on 06.09.1989, he was not entitled to benefit of the 1995 Scheme.  However, there is no evidence of the complainant having resigned from his job or having been retrenched on 06.09.1989. There is no evidence of the complainant having been retrenched from the services of M/s Shree Ambica Mills Ltd. in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.  Therefore, he continued to be an employee of M/s Shree Ambica Mills Ltd., till the date of his superannuation.

6.     I also find that in Narendra B. Deshmukh (supra), the complainant who was in the services of Bajaj Auto Ltd, had resigned from services on 21.04.1987 and was a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971.  The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation on the ground that he had ceased to be a member of the 1971 Scheme, prior to April, 1993. This Commission noticed that the above referred complainant had resigned on 21.04.1987 but held that he was fully entitled to family pension under the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971.  This Commission declined to interfere with the order of the State Commission which had held that the above referred complainant who had resigned on 21.04.1987, was entitled to pension benefit under the new pension scheme notified in the year 1995.

7.     In the present case, since there is no evidence of the complainant having resigned from the services of M/s Shree Ambica Mills Ltd. on 06.09.1989, he continued to be a member of the 1971 Scheme and consequently, he became entitled to the benefit of pension under the 1995 Scheme.  The view taken by the fora below therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.  Fee of the Amicus Curiae be paid as per rules.