1. The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as “the Provident Fund Organisation”), Opposite Party challenging the Order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thiruvananthapuram (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 565 of 2013.  By the Impugned Order, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Provident Fund Organisation by affirming the Order dated 11.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 178/2010 whereby, the District Forum had partly allowed the Complaint and directed the Provident Fund Organisation to pay ₹905/- as monthly pension to the Complainants with arrears alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint till the date of payment together with cost of ₹1500/-.
2. The wife of the Respondent No. 1 has moved an Application bearing IA No. 9024 / 2022, seeking permission to implead legal heirs of Sathyadevan, Respondent No. 1, i.e., Nalini (wife), Shylaja (daughter) and Satheesh (son) as necessary parties in the matter since the Respondent No. 1 has expired and Death Certificate of Sathyadevan Respondent No. 1 has been filed alongwith the Application.  For the reasons stated in IA No. 9024 / 2022, Application is allowed and the Legal Heirs of Sathyadevan, Respondent No.1 are hereby impleaded as Respondents in the instant case.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant was working as a cashew worker on monthly wage basis in M/s. Raj Kumar Impex, Kareepra w.e.f. 01.06.1996 and retired from the service on 20.04.2008, i.e., after completing a service of 11 years 10 months and 19 days which as per rules was to be rounded to 12 years. He was contributing to Pension Fund for all the 12 years.  His non-contributory service was 184 days only and accordingly his pensionable service is 11 years.  The last pay drawn of the Complainant was ₹4288.88 but as per PPO issued by the Organisation his last pay was ₹3900/-.  It is the case of the Complainant that although he is eligible for monthly pension of ₹674/- yet the Opposite Party sanctioned him monthly pension of ₹167/-.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation, the Complainant preferred a Complaint before the District Commission.

4. Upon notice, by filing its Written Version, the Provident Fund Organisation contested the Complaint on the ground that the as per record, the Complainant had joined the Pension Fund on 01.06.1996 and his date of birth was 21.04.1950. Therefore, his date of completion of 58 years was on 20.04.2008. The Complainant had a pensionable service of only 3 years 8 days from 01.01.1996 to 20.04.2008. But he had a non-contributory period of 8 years 10 months and 1 day of break. Hence, his pensionable service was rounded to 3 years. The Opposite Party filed additional affidavit stating that the revised pension of the Complainant was ₹226/- after taking into account his average wages as ₹5277/-. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on their part and it was prayed that the Consumer Complaint be dismissed.

5. On analysis of the evidence adduced by the Parties before it, the District Forum partly allowed the Complaint by observing as under:-

“…..The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has only a pensionable service of 3 years 8 days which is rounded to 3 year. The balance is break. According to the complainant the above contention of the opposite party is incorrect and illegal. The complainant worked continuously throughout his service and paid contribution promptly. No amount of contributions was due to be paid. Pensionable service as per 10 (1) of EPS, 95 is the service of the complainant in which contributions received. Pensionable service in 12 (2) formula is replaced by no. of years. Hence pensionable service is no. of years in which contributions received from the employer. Converting years into days and then to years is illegal and it is not mentioned in anywhere in the scheme. In all the 12 PF years of his service, the complainant paid contributions and it is clear from Ext P1 series. The concerned PF years are 1996-97 to 2007-08. In these 12 years of his service, the opposite party received contributions and hence pensionable service is 12 years.

As per para 10(1) of EPS 95 reducing the total service of 12 years of the complainant to 3 years cannot be accepted. Hence the pensionable service of the complainant is 12 years.

There is no dispute that the pensionable salary of complainant is ₹5277/-. Hence monthly pension as per para 12 (2) of EPS 95 is ₹905/-

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties are directed to pay ₹905/- as monthly pension to the complainant with arrears. The opposite party is also directed to pay the arrear amount along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of this complaint till the date of payment. The opposite party is further directed to pay cost ₹1500/-.”

6. Aggrieved with the Order passed by the District Forum, the Opposite Party Provident Fund Organisation preferred Appeal before the State Commission, which affirmed the Order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal by observing as under:-

“…Admittedly, the complainant has only actual service as contemplated by the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995. He was admittedly contributing to the Pension Fund from 01.06.1996 till 20.04.2008. So as per records the period of service is 12 years. The appellant excluded 8 years 10 months and 1 day from the total service of the complainant as break in service because of none contribution to pension fund. The question is whether this is justified. The appellant seeks to justify this exclusion on the basis of Ext.R.1. It is seen that in 1995 out of the total working days 170 in Cashew Factory the complainant has worked 155 days. Similarly, in the year 1996 out of the total 94 working days the complainant had worked on 80 days and so on. In short, appellant has taken into the account contribution to pension fund on day to day basis. Such a calculation of break in service is not contemplated by the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995. It is pertinent to notice that work in a Cashew Factory is seasonal depending on the availability of raw cashew nuts. So in determining the eligible service the explanation to paragraph 9 (a) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme has to be taken into account. The explanation requires the authorities to reckon actual service in such cases in terms of full year even in case the service is less than a year. So appellant was not justified in taking account contribution on day by day basis and decide break in service. The appellant has no case that the complainant and his employer have not contributed to the pension fund for the days in which the complainant has actually worked. In short, the Consumer Forum was fully justified in handing that the complainant had actual service of 12 years. The appellant bound to pay pension to the complainant on the basis that he has actually service 12 years. Hence the appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but without cost..”

7. Being aggrieved, challenging the Impugned Orders passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation has filed the present Revision Petitions before this Commission.

8. Mr. Puneet Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation, submitted that the State Commission had failed to appreciate that the Respondent/Complainant joined the EPF Scheme on 01.06.1996. He left service on 20.04.2008 and contributed under the EPS Scheme up to his date of leaving service. As per the statement received from the employer, the Complainant had a non-contributory period of 3213 days. His membership under the EPS’95 ceased on 20.04.2008 on attaining the age of 58 years. The learned Counsel further submitted that as per manual of accounting procedure of EPS ’95 the period of pensionable service is arrived by reducing the period of non-contributory service during the period of employment falling on after 16.11.1995 till the date of exit from the employment or attainment of 58 years, whichever is earlier from the actual service.”  It was further submitted that the pensionable service of the Complainant was taken as 3 years because the contribution towards EPS ’95 in respect of the Complainant was received only for the period for 3 years and 8 days (rounded to 3 years) out of the total actual service of 11 years 11 months and 19 days. It was further submitted that the Orders passed by the Fora below suffer from material illegality and need to be quashed.  It was prayed that the Orders passed by the Fora below be set aside and the Complaint be dismissed.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainant/Respondent herein, supported the Impugned Order passed by the State Commission as according to him the State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order which is based on a correct and rightful appreciation of evidence and material available on record and does not call for any interference

10. We have heard Mr. Puneet Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party/Petitioner Provident Fund Organisation and Mr.  Murali Madanthacodu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Complainants/Respondent.

11. From the perusal of the material available on record and having given thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission vide its well-reasoned Order dated 14.01.2015 has rightly affirmed the findings recorded by the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Provident Fund Organisation in calculating the pensionable service of the Complainant by reducing the total service of 12 years of the Complainant into 3 years.  While passing the Impugned Order dated 14.01.2015, the State Commission had considered all the material evidence on record and we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission.  Further, there is no misreading of any evidence material on record and all the material in evidence which was placed before the State Commission has been considered.  It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission.  For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [supra]  is reproduced as under:-

“9.     It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ (supra), we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Order passed by the State Commission.  Consequently, the present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.