APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Shivanth Mahanta, Advocate For the Respondent(s) Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 19TH FEBRUARY 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 02.04.2012, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 156/2012, he Regional Provident Fund Commissioner versus Sayed Sakhawat Hussain,vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order dated 01.11.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer, allowing the consumer complaint in question, was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Sayed Sakhawat Hussain used to work at Sehkari Upbhokta Bhandar at Ajmer from where he took voluntary retirement on 31.07.2000. According to the complainant, regular deductions were made by his Organisation from his salary for his provident fund contribution which was deposited in account no. RJ 1244/15 with the petitioner/OP. The complainant alleged that he was not being paid his pension although he had approached the petitioner/OP many times and also sent a legal notice to them. The complainant/respondent was, therefore, suffering financial loss which caused him lot of mental harassment and agony. In reply before the District Forum, the petitioner stated that the complainant became a Member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952 on 1.06.1967 and at that time, he disclosed his age as 35 years. According to this version he completed the age of 60 years in June 1992. However, in accordance with the Employees Pension Scheme 1995, implemented with effect from 16.11.95, he could get the pension only if he was below 58 years of age on 16.11.1995. It has further been stated that the complainant was a member of Family Pension Scheme 1971, according to which pension is only payable to the family in the case of death of a member. A sum of `44,016/- had already been paid to the complainant on 11.03.2002 and he was not entitled to receive any pension. The District Forum vide their order dated 1.11.2011 allowed the complaint saying that the petitioner/OP should pay the amount due to him since his voluntary retirement on 21.07.2000 with interest @9% p.a. within two months and also to pay `1,000/- as litigation cost. An appeal was filed against this order before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 2.04.2012. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. 3. At the time of hearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the said order was a non-speaking and sketchy order and the merits of the case had not been discussed at all, while coming to conclusion. Learned counsel has further drawn our attention to the grounds of the revision petition saying that no option was admissible to the EPF organisation for payment of pension after attainment of 58 years of age or withdrawal of provident fund accumulation. The learned counsel for the respondent stated that the State Commission order was in accordance with law. 4. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. The complainant vide his consumer complaint dated 25.08.2010 claimed that he should be given his due pension, since the date he took voluntary retirement. The District Forum allowed his complaint and ordered to pay the amount due since his voluntary retirement with interest @9% p.a. within a period of two months and also to pay `1,000/- as litigation cost. An appeal against this order has been dismissed by the State Commission vide impugned order dated 2.04.2012. A copy of the English translation of the complete order passed by the State Commission reads as under:- ppellant lawyer was heard and the file was studied deeply. All the facts and evidence of the lower court were analyzed and order was issued. Therefore there is no need to review the facts and evidences again. After seeing the facts and the condition there is no deficiency found in the order given by the lower court on 01.11.2011, appeal no. 348/10 as the district court has wisely taken decision on the case as per the facts presented in which it would be baseless to interfere. Advantage and disadvantage has no relation with the appeal. Hence the state commission stands by the decision of the district court order no. 348/10. Appellant appeal is dismissed on the merit. 5. It is very clear from a plain reading of the above order that the State Commission has not cared to go into the merits of the case at all and have not carried out any detailed analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case before coming to their conclusion. The petitioner has taken the stand that since a total sum of `44,016/- has been transferred to the account of the complainant and since he was not eligible under the 1995 Scheme to get the pension, the same was not paid. It shall, therefore, be in the fitness of things that the merits of the case are discussed by the State Commission after hearing both the parties and a clear-cut finding given on each issue. It is an established legal proposition that the parties to the litigation are well within their rights to file appeal against the orders of a public authority and it is the duty of the appellate authority to hear the same and take decision on merits. We are supported in this contention by the order passed by the Honle Supreme Court in (2001) 10 SCC 659 HVPNL Vs. Mahavir, in which it was observed as under: . We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh in future. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Commission 7. In the light of the discussion above, this revision petition is allowed, order of the State Commission is set aside, case is remanded back to the State Commission with a direction to call the parties, hear them again and then pass a detailed speaking order giving their verdict, on the issues contained in the complaint. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission again on 05.05.2014.