1.      The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby the petitioner herein seeks to assail the order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in revision petition No. 106/2006. By way of the impugned order, the revision petition preferred against the orders dated 06.12.2005 and 01.05.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) in Execution Petition No. 456/2003 has been dismissed.

2.      The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/opposite party on the ground that his pension has been wrongly fixed as Rs.551/- per month instead of Rs. 835/- per month as per the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. It was the case of the complainant that he was a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1995 for more than 35 years, therefore, entitled for the maximum benefits under the scheme.  After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence, vide order dated 25.08.2003, the District Forum observed that since the complainant falls under the category of sub-paragrah-5 and attained the age of 55 years on 16.11.95, the date of birth being 29.04.1940 and fulfilled the condition of 24 years past service from 01.03.1971 to 15.11.1995, the minimum monthly pension shall be Rs. 335/- plus Rs. 500/- making the total of Rs. 835/- and not Rs. 551/-. Vide the same order, the opposite party was directed as follows:-

“The respondent is ordered to re-examine the pension case of the complainant as per the notification of Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi dated 16.11.95. However, there is no order as to costs. The respondent is also ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within 30 days after the receipt of the copy of present order.”

3.  Thereafter, an application was filed for execution of the order dated 25.08.2003 passed by the District Forum. Vide order dated 06.12.2005, the District Forum held as follows:-

“The Forum has observed that the case of the complainant is only concerned with the first part of this sub-section-b and is not at all related to the later part of this section. The Forum is, therefore, of the opinion that the pension of the complainant is to be determined as per first part of this b-clause of the same section. It is made more clear that the minimum pension has been prescribed as Rs. 500/- p.m. and in section-a the minimum pension has been described as Rs. 335/- total making Rs. 835/-. The Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to this pension. The respondents are ordered to pay the said amount in the shape of pension to the complainant w.e.f. its due date”.

4.      Allegedly on account of failure to comply with the order, the District Forum vide order dated 01.05.2006 issued bailable warrants of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety for the like amount.

5.      Aggrieved by the orders dated 06.12.2005 and 01.05.2006, the opposite party preferred a revision petition before the State Commission. The State Commission vide order dated 10.07.2007 dismissed the revision petition.

6.      Hence the present revision petition.

7.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent/complainant in person.  The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the respondent/complainant is entitled only to a pension of Rs.551/- per month as calculated by the petitioner department.  The complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum.  The District Forum finally ordered that the case of the respondent in respect of the pension should be decided in the light of the notification of Government of India Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi dated 16.11.1995.

8.      Learned counsel argued that the Government of India Ministry of Labour & Employment issued a notification dated 15.06.2007 and this notification is applicable since 1995 and as per this notification also, the complainant is only entitled to Rs.551/- per month.  This is the latest order for calculating the pension and the petitioner is bound by this notification to fix the pension accordingly.  Thus, prima facie the orders of the fora below are incorrect. The pension is to be fixed as per the Rules and Regulations of the Department and the consumer forum is not at its will to fix the pension in derogation of the rules and regulations. 

9.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent in person and have perused the documents.  First of all it is seen that there is a delay of 246 days in filing the present revision petition.  However, this delay was condoned by this Commission’s order in December, 2008 at a cost of Rs.10,000/-.   

10.    As the delay has already been condoned, the matter is being considered only on merits now. The following is mentioned in the application for condonation of delay:-

“3.   That the concerned Advocate who was doing the matter on behalf of the petitioner before the State Commission, has opined vide its letter dated 8.8.2007 that the petitioner may re-fix the pension of the respondent as per the directions given by the District Forum and as such, immediately thereafter, no steps were taken to file the present petition.

4.     That subsequently, the notification dated 15.6.2007 was circulated to all the Provident Fund Officers of India and by virtue of the said notification and the clarification of para 12 of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, was made and by virtue of the said clarification and re-casting of para 12 which came into force w.e.f. 16.11.1995, and in accordance with the said re-casted clarification of para 12, the respondent is only entitled for his pension at the rate of Rs.551/- per month instead of Rs.835/- as directed by the Fora below.

5.     That on the basis of the aforesaid notification inter-office exchange of correspondences and office memos and thereafter also, a fresh opinion was sought from the concerned Advocate who vide its opinion dated 4.10.2007 which was received in the office of R.P.F.C., Delhi, on 28.5.2008 by fax and in the said opinion, it has been advised to file a revision petition on the basis of change of pension policy.

6.     That immediately on receipt of the said opinion letter dated 04.10.2007 on 28.05.2008, the office of R.P.F.C. Delhi, assigned the matter to the undersigned Advocate, and the undersigned Advocate vide its letter dated 30.5.2008, advised them to bring the certified copies of orders of the Ld. State Commission for the purposes of filing of the present petition and also gave his opinion dated 9.6.2008 wherein advised the petitioner to request the counsel for the petitioner before the State Commission to file a review petition along with the calculation sheet before the State Commission, Panchkula.  The R.P.F.C. Faridabad, contacted the Advocate who in turn further stated vide its letter dated 17.6.2008, which was received by R.P.F.C. Delhi, on 1.7.2008 through R.P.F.C. Faridabad, vide its letter dated 27.6.2008, that there is no provision of review and as such, an appropriate revision petition be filed before this Hon’ble Commission.

7.     That without wasting any further time, the present petition is being filed immediately on the available documents.

8.     That there is no intentional or deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner in preferring the present revision petition before this Hon’ble Court well within the period of limitation and the delay, if any, was only due to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, which are bonafide.”

 11.   From the above application for condonation of delay two things are clear.  First that the petitioner department had agreed to abide by the order dated 10.7.2007 of the State Commission and to fix the pension as per the order of the District Forum on the basis of the advice from their counsel.   Secondly, that this revision petition is based on the notification dated 15.6.2007, which was not perhaps available before the District Forum or the State Commission.      As the notification dated 15.6.2007, is a new ground that has been taken by the petitioner at the stage of revision petition, the same cannot be considered at this stage as implied by Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which reads as under:-

“21 Jurisdiction of the National Commission- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction-

(b)   to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so verted, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” 

12.    As the petitioner was ready to implement the order of the State Commission, it is clear that there was no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 10.7.2007 of the State Commission based on the record available before the State Commission by that time.  If the order is affected by any subsequent notification of Government of India Ministry of Labour and Employment, the order of the State Commission cannot be challenged in the revision petition on the basis of the subsequent notification.

13.    In ground C of the revision petition, the following is mentioned:-

“That the verdict of the Fora below particularly the verdict of the State Commission is not in accordance with law for the reason that the State Commission has ignored to consider the notification dated 15.6.2007 published by Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment.” 

14.    From the above, petitioner is trying to say that the notification dated 15.6.2007 was brought to the notice of the State Commission whereas it does not seem probable as the State Commission has pronounced the order on 10.7.2007.  Moreover, the petitioner has mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that the Advocate looking after the matter of the petitioner before the State Commission vide its letter dated 8.8.2007 had informed the petitioner to fix the pension as per the impugned order. The petitioner has further mentioned in the application for condonation of delay that subsequently the notification dated 15.6.2007 was circulated to all the Provident Fund Officers of India.  It clearly means that by 8.8.2007, the petitioner was not having any information in respect of notification dated 15.6.2007 and therefore, the presumption would be that notification dated 15.6.2007 was not brought before the State Commission and therefore, the ground C is only misrepresentation of facts.

15.    Based on the above examination, it is clear that the petitioner has filed this revision petition on the basis of new facts that were not before the consumer fora below.  In the revision petition, this Commission is required to see illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission.  As the petitioner has accepted the advice of the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing before the State Commission to fix the pension as per the order of the fora below, it cannot be said that the petitioner found any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the fora below.  Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the revision petition.  Revision petition 2773 of 2008 is dismissed.