JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. Vide the present revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.11.2017 of the State Commission in Appeal no.3583 of 2012 which had been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.08.2012 of the District Forum in Complaint No.378 of 2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent was working with the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and he had worked for a period from 16.01.1971 to 30.04.2005, on which date, he retired. He was a member of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 and when it was substituted by Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, he became member of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. His account number was G.J.1122/A/22117. He was aggrieved by the fact that petitioner who was the opposite party before the District Forum in his complaint, had fixed his pension at Rs.1256/- while he was entitled for the pension at Rs.1436/- per month in terms of Section 12 (4) of the Employees State Pension Scheme, 1995 which was applicable to him. When his request for recalculation of his pension was not heeded, he filed complaint. All the other contentions in the complaint except the entitlement of the complainant for pension of Rs.1436/- per month, has been admitted. 3. Parties led their evidences before the District Forum and the District Forum after perusing the file and going through the rules and regulations governing the parties, allowed the complaint partly and issued the following directions: “The Complaint is partly allowed. The pension of the complainant is fixed at Rs.1436/- ( Rupees One Thousand Four Hundred Thirty Six only) per month. The opponent are hereby directed to re-fix the pension accordingly at rate of Rs.1436/- ( Rupees One Thousand Four Hundred thirty six only) per month with effect from 30.04.2005 and make payment accordingly for difference with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the payment within 2 months after receiving this order. The opponents shall pay sum of Rs.5000/- ( Rupees five thousand only) by way of mental harassment and Rs.2000/- ( Rupees Two thousand only) by way of costs for the litigation to the complainant. This order should be executed within two months. Order be intimated to both the parties free of costs.” 4. This order was impugned before the State Commission and contentions raised by the petitioner was that he is not entitled for pension at Rs.1436/- and they had rightly calculated his pension at Rs.1256/-. This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the State Commission vide the impugned order. 5. The impugned order is challenged before me on the same contention that the respondent - employee was not entitled for pension at Rs.1436/- per month but is entitled for the pension at Rs.1256/-. 6. I have heard the arguments and have perused the relevant record. 7. Admitted facts are that complainant had been in service from 16.01.1971 to 30.04.2005. The Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme came into operation in 1995 and the complainant also became the Member. The District Forum has relied on the following provisions of the said Pension Scheme. The relevant portion of the District Forum’s order is reproduced as under: “8. Therefore, from the facts stated above, it is clear that after application of pension scheme, the complainant served more than 9 years. This scheme was applied in 1995. The complainant served since 1971. Therefore, at the time of application of the scheme, the complainant has served for 24 years. If that be so, Section 12 (4) of the Employees State Pension Scheme 1995 will apply. It is as under: “(4) In the case of an employee ( who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and has attained the age of 48 years but less than 53 years on 16th Nov.1995, the superannuation / retirement pension shall be equal to the aggregate of : ( a ) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or Rs.438/- per month whichever is more; ( b) past service benefit as provided in sub-paragraph ( 3) subject to a minimum of Rs.600/- per month provided the past service is 24 years. Provided further that it is less than 24 years the pension payable and the pas service benefits taken together shall be proportionately less subject to the minimum of Rs.325/- per month.” 9. Therefore, as per section 12 (4) (b), the complainant is entitled to get sum of Rs.600/- P.M as he has completed 24 years service. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get sum of Rs.1436/- by way of pension. The opponent has fixed pension at Rs.1256/-. Therefore, there is difference of sum of Rs.180/- per month. The opponent is liable to pay sum of Rs.180/- per month to the complainant from 30.04.2005. The complainant has prayed for weightage for courier. The complainant has completed 58 years. The complainant retired on completion of 58 years after serving more than 34 years. Therefore, there is no question to grant weightage for 2 years.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that the District Forum has wrongly relied on the provisions as mentioned above and that some other provision than the one on which the District Forum has relied are applicable. The State Commission has also relied on the same provisions while confirming the order of the District Forum. 9. It is apparent from the ordersheet dated 20.02.2018 that the petitioner had undertaken to file the amended rules governing the Employees Pension Scheme, 1971 and 1995 which they had filed. I have gone through the rules. The complete set of rules is not filed. The notification No. etc. or the date on which the rules were notified or promulgated is not evident from these copies of rules supplied. It is also not shown as to in what way these rules govern the service conditions of the complainant. It is also not shown if after becoming member of Rules 1995 he had opted to be covered under any other subsequent rules. He has by his evidences proved that he was governed by Rules of 1995. 10. It is settled provision of law that this Commission has a limited revisional jurisdiction. It can interfere with the impugned order of the Fora below only when the findings are perverse and are without any jurisdiction. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to point out any perversity in the impugned order. It has also failed to point out that impugned order has been passed by the Fora below without having a jurisdiction. The Fora below have duly relied on the provisions binding on the parties. 11. The present Revision Petition has no merit. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. | 
