The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 24th September 2018 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangaluru (‘the State Commission’) in CC no. 751 of 2017. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the main issue to be decided in the present revision petition is that whether the benefit of two years granted under paragraph 10.2 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme of 1995 will be applicable to those members who were the members of the earlier scheme prior to 1995 and they were inducted in the scheme 1995 when the services was made pensionable. Before that, Employees Provident Fund Scheme were not pensionable. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that both the Fora below have given concurrent finding that the benefit of two years will be applicable to the members who were part of the scheme prior to 1995 also. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as this provision is a part of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme of 1995 , therefore, it cannot be applied for services prior to 1995. 3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record as well as the provisions of the scheme. Paragraph 10.2 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1995 has been notified vide order dated 28.02.1996. If there is a mention of 20 years of service in the section which was inserted in the year 1996, it is imperative that the services of 20 years would have been possible in the year 1996 and that can only happen if services prior to 1995 are taken into account. Thus, I am of the considered view that benefit of paragraph 10.2 would be available to those members also who were continuing with the services prior to 1995 and were members of the earlier scheme when pension was not permissible. It also appeals to reason that once the members who are not eligible for pension are brought into new scheme of 1995, at least they can get benefit of two years in lieu of their earlier services for upto 20 years. 4. Based on the above discussion, I am of the view that there seems to be no confusion in giving the benefit of two years as per paragraph 10.2 to those members who were members of the earlier scheme and who were transferred to the scheme of 1995 and have put in more than 20 years of service including the services prior to 1995. Accordingly, the District Forum and the State Commission have correctly appreciated the law and have passed the right order. 5. Based on the above, discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the State Commission which calls for interference from this Commission. Consequently, the present revision petition no. 385 of 2019 is dismissed at the admission stage. | 
