JUSTICE J. M. MALIK

1.      This  common order  shall decide  the 35 cases, detailed above, because they arise from the same impugned orders of the State Commission,  rendered  on  three  different  dates, vis-à-vis  07.06.2013, 06.09.2013 and 29.01.2014.  All the appeals filed before the State Commission, were dismissed , while placing  reliance  on the judgment of this Commission, passed  in  RP 765 of 2013, in the case of  Assistant Provident Fund  Commissioner Vs. Vasant Madhav Kerur,  decided on 09.04.2013.

2.      All  the  complainants  retired  from  their  services, they  were made Members of Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and they opted for Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.  They contend that fixation of pension is   to  be done in terms of para 12(4) read with para 10(2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.  All of them were working in Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., OP2.  It is alleged that the Regional Provident Commissioner, OP1/petitioner, had fixed their pension as per para 12(4) and 12(7) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.  It  is  alleged  that  OP1  has  not  given weightage under  Rule 10(2) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.  All the complaints were partly allowed by the District Forum, in the following  terms :-

                    “ORDER

• All the complaints  against  the first opponent are partly allowed.
• The first opponent is directed to refix the pension of all these complainants by calculating the superannuation pension in the matter stated at Para 34 of this judgment and by calculating past service benefit under para 12(4)(b) or 12(5)(b), whichever is applicable, as the provisions stood prior to the amendment.
• The first opponent is further ordered to pay the interest at the rate of 9% p.a., for the belated payment to be made to the complainants on account of refixation of their respective pension amount.
• Further, the first opponent is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to each of the complainants towards the litigation expenses.
• The first opponent is hereby ordered to comply with this order within two months from the date of communication of this order
• The complaints against the 2^nd opponent are dismissed.
• The original judgment  be kept in the file of CC 158/2012 and the copies of the same be kept in all other cases”.

3.      As  already  mentioned  above,  the appeals were dismissed by the State Commission.

4.      Aggrieved  by   the  orders  of   the  State  Commission,    these revision  petitions  have  been  filed by the OP.  However,  there is 14 days’  delay  in  some  cases,  i.e.,  in  RP 2244/2014  to RP 2271/2014.

5.      In view of  the reasons  explained in  the applications for condonation of delay,  the said delay is  hereby condoned, subject to just exceptions.

 6.     We  have  heard  the  counsel for the petitioner.  He has invited our attention that there has been amendment in para 10(2)  of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.  The said amendment was explained  by  the District Forum, in its order, at Para Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 33, as under :-

“30.  Earlier to the amendment, the Para 10(2) of the EPS, 1995, read as follows :-

       “In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and/or who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding weightage of two years”.

31.  After amendment ,which is expressly stated w.e.f. 24.07.2009, para 10(2) of  the 1995 Scheme, reads as follows :-

“In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding weightage of two years”.

32. It has to be noticed that prior to  amendment of para 10(2) of the Scheme, for  a member to get weightage of two years, it  was sufficient if he/she has  either superannuated after the age of 58 years or has rendered 20 years of pensionable service (eligible service as decided above), or more.

33. In the cases on hand, undisputedly, all the complainants have rendered 20 years of eligible service or more, and they have retired prior to the date namely, 24/7/2009, from when the amendment to para – 10(2) does not prevent the complainants from claiming the benefit of weightage of two years, even if any of them has superannuated without attaining the age of 58 years”.

7.      Counsel  for  the  petitioner  has  also  filed list of 35 employees, mentioning  therein  the date of retirement of each employee.  We  have seen  the list  and  find  that almost all the 35 employees had retired prior to 24.07.2009, except, M.R.Gundachary, who retired on 02.07.2010, H.G.Govindaiah, who retired  on  09.05.2010,  G. Lokeshappa,  who retired on 03.01.2010, and  Gopalakrishna,  who  retired  on 20.10.2010.  All  these  four  persons  have to be  governed   by the  amended  section.   All  these  four  persons  had  retired  at  the age of 58 years.  All  four of  them  have rendered service for  more  than 20  years.  The  District Forum  has  rightly  calculated  the pension.

8.      The view taken by both the fora below cannot be faulted.  The OP1 has no bone to pluck with the complainants.  All these revision petitions  are   without  merit and, therefore, the same are hereby dismissed.