Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that  the complainant’s works as an employee of OP No.1. His  EPF dues was  being deducted and paid to OP No.2. It is alleged inter-alia that the husband of the complainant died on 05.11.1998 and she was getting pension. It is alleged that husband’s date of birth was 01.07.1944 but not 01.07.1939. Due to wrong recording  of the date of birth, she could not get higher pension.  It is also stated by the complainant that the copy of the service book  shows that the date of birth of deceased  Ballav Sahu  was 01.07.1944. Therefore, he asked for revision of the pension but not  done by the OP for which the complaint was filed.

4.            The  OP  No.1 appeared and also filed written version stating that the service  records of late of Ballav Sahoo  are available  and  accordingly  pension was disbursed to the wife of the complainant. There is no any clear proof of date of birth for which the settled principle can not be denied. The  case is meant for enhancement of pension if the date  of birth is corrected. 5.              After  hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                      “Hence, we hold that the complainant is certainly entitled for revision of her pension under the above scheme and accordingly the OP No.2 is directed to fix the pension in favour of the complainant treating the date of birth of the deceased-employee as 1.7.1944 and the exit wages at Rs.3331/- as admitted by OP No.1 within 45 days from the date of this order w.e.f. 5.11.98 under the scheme. However, no orders  against OP No.1. “

6.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law  by directing to review the date of birth of Ballav Sahoo and by giving higher pension  as per his eligibility. According to him through out service carrier date of birth of Ballav Sahoo mentioned as 01.07.1939 but not 01.07.1944 and there is no proof by complainant to change of date of birth.  Learned District Forum ought to have considered all such facts as per the norms of the Service Code. Therefore,  he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.              Considered the submission of learned counsel for  the appellant, perused the DFR and  impugned order.

8.               It is  admitted fact that the husband of the complainant during his life time has maintained the date of birth which is 01.07.1939.  After death the new problem was raised  with regard to change of date of birth when the pension has already given to the complainant. During life time of the husband of the complainant there is no change of date of birth, now it is not possible to consider the change of date of birth. Moreover no order of any authority or Civil Court or any Court is produced  having date of birth of Ballav Sahoo is produced by complainant. When husband during his life time did not change same, entertaining such plea by complainant now would be abuse of process of law. Learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the materials on record.

9.           Therefore, impugned order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside.

               Appeal is allowed.  No cost.            

               Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                DFR be sent back forthwith.