1.       The present Revision Petition(s) (RP) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 58 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 22.09.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) Nos. 637 to 643 of 2018 in which order dated 23.06.2018 of Ernakulam, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) Nos. 826 to 829 of 2015 and 74, 76 to 78 of 2017 were challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 22.09.2020 passed by the State Commission in the above said Appeals.

2.       As the above stated seven RPs have been filed against the similar orders of the State Commission, Petitioner involved is the same, and issues for consideration are similar, these are being taken up together under this order. However, for the sake of convenience, RP 1042 of 2021 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from RP 1042 of 2021.

3.       While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA/637/2018 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission in the CC/826/2018. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 18.01.2022.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 12.09.2023 (Petitioner) and Respondent (28.08.2023) respectively.

4.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:

(i)      Respondent was an employee of the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT Ltd.)  The respondent is a member of Employees Pension Scheme 1995 (the “Scheme” or “EPS 1995”). The respondent rendered past service of 25 years prior to 15.11.1995 as defined under para 2(1) (xii) of the Scheme and actual service was 8 years after 16.11.1995 as defined under Para 2 (1)(ii) of the Scheme. Thus, the total eligible service rendered by the respondent works out of 33 years as determined under para 9(b) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.   The petitioner considering the statutory provisions of Para 12(4)(b) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme  1995 fixed the pension of the respondent/complainant at Rs.2695/-, details reproduced as follows:-

(ii)     Being dissatisfied, the respondent/complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

5.       Vide Order dated 23.06.2018, in the CC Nos. 826 to 829 of 2015 and 74, 76 to 78 of 2017 allowed the complaints by a common order in all the seven complaints and passed the following order:-

“ 1)           We direct the opposite party to allow the weightage of two years to the pensionable service to all complainants as per paragraph 12 (4) a & and para 10 (2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995 (EPS 1995) and re-compute the monthly pension amount in the lines as discussed above, and pay the pension amount from the due date along with 8.5 interest p.a. to each of the complainants till the date of realization. The above order shall be complied with 30 days for the date of receipt this order.

2)  We also direct the opposite party to allow the minimum past service benefit of Rs.550/- to the complainant in C.C. No.74/2017 and Rs.800 per month to the complainant in C.C. No.826/2015 and Rs.600/- in other 5 complainants. In this case C.C. No. 829/2015, 2 years service fall short of 58 years. Therefore 6% alone can be deducted from the pension of Sri. Joy, the complainant in C.C. No. 829/2015 under paragraph 12 (4) of the EPS 1995 and re-compute the monthly pension amount granting the minimum past service benefit to the complainant in C.C.829/2015 with the accrued interest thereon from the respective date of commencement of pension @ the rate of 8.5% p.a. The above order shall be complied with 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this common order. 

3)  We also direct the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- each to the complainants in these complaints towards compensation for the deficiency in service, delay and inconvenience caused to the complainants and Rs.10,000/- each, towards costs, failing which the above amount except costs shall carry 8.5 % interest from the 31st da receipt of this order.”  

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order dated of District Commission, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 22.09.2020 dismissed the Appeals viz Nos. 637 to 643 of 2018 by a common order.

7.       Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 22.09.2020 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The State Commission failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it properly and impugned order as passed is arbitrary and has been passed without appreciation of the factual matrix of the case.

2. The District Forum allowed the complaint.  The State Commission erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner relying on facts beyond the pleading of the parties in as much as weightage of two years’ service and past service benefit of Rs.800/- and therefore, acted without jurisdiction.  The State Commission has given no reason for grant of past service benefit of Rs.800/- in the impugned order as pensionary benefits were sanctioned based on statutory provisions. State Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues involving interpretation of statutes/rules and circulars.  The State Commission failed to appreciate that in the event of any difficulty in disbursement of pension and other benefits or for resolving any difficulty in implementation of the scheme. The Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 itself provides for an alternative remedy wherein, the Central Government has authority to issue a direction as contemplated under paragraph 35 and 41 of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The said provisions read as under:-

"35. Power to issue directions. The Central Government may issue, such directions as may be deemed just and proper by it for resolving any difficulty in the disbursement of pension and other benefits or for resolving any difficulty in implementation of the Scheme."

Further, Para 41 reads as hereunder in so far it relates to interpretation of Scheme:

"Interpretation. - Where any doubt arises with regard to the interpretation of the provisions of this Scheme, it shall be referred to the Central Government who shall decide the same."

(iii)    The  State Commission failed to appreciate that as per the clarification received from the EPFO Head Office vide letter dated 26.11.2013 and subsequent corrigendum, 2 years weightage can be given only in cases where superannuation pension i.e. Pension at the age of 58 years had commenced prior to 24.07.2009. Vide GSR No.594(E) dated 23/7/2009 a member who superannuated 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 a weightage of 2 years. Accordingly weightage of 2 years is considered in this case and arrears has been released. The delay in disbursement of weightage benefit cannot be considered as a deficiency of service as the same was released soon after the necessary clarification has been issued by the competent authority regarding eligibility for weightage benefit. As the petitioner is a statutory authority, the disbursement of pensionary benefits or any amendment thereof can only be done as per the existing statutory provisions. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a self contained Act and since the said Act provides for alternative and efficacious remedy, the Consumer Forum cannot interpret a rule or law governing payment of pension to an employee. In view of the above legal position the District Forum has erred in interpreting paragraph 12 of the Scheme and further exceeded in its jurisdiction in directing calculating the pension with minimum pension for past service benefit at Rs. 800/- as per para 12(4)(b). Further the aggregate of Past service benefit and pension as per formula under para 12(2) arrived shall not less than Rs. 800/-. In this case the aggregate pension arrived is Rs. 3281/- which is more than the minimum prescribed amount of Rs.800/- as per para 12(4)(ii) and therefore correct as per Scheme provisions. There is no prescribed minimum for past service benefit and the same is arrived based on the Table under Para 12(3) and Table B of the EPS Scheme 1995. The State Commission had failed to appreciate the fact that the pension amendment scheme dated 15/06/2007 have only recast the paragraphing of para 12 to clarify the statutory provisions in respect of calculation of pension amount. No rights have been modified and hence the amendment have been implemented retrospectively from the date of inception of the pension scheme. The State Commission failed to appreciate that it is a well settled law that if any alternative remedy is provided under law, the Consumer Forum constituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not get jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute. The Consumer Fora in exercise of Section 11 of the Act cannot interpret a rule or law and direct the Appellant to pay pension as demanded by subscribers. The action of the Appellant in refusing to pay pension as demanded by respondent does not amount to deficiency in service and therefore, the entire proceedings initiated by the District Forum is illegal, contrary to law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside as null and void.

(iv)    The State Commission failed to appreciate that the issue at hand is reinterpretation of the statutory pension scheme by the district forum overstepping its bounds. Any such reinterpretation would also involve huge financial implication to the pension scheme which is already facing financial constraints as per statutory actuarial analysis. More than a crore subscribers of employees' pension scheme who are similarly placed are bound to get benefit of such reinterpretations and therefore financial implication the judgment would cast would also need to be considered. Further, the pension scheme is not run on any profit basis and the petitioner organisation is also not receiving any consideration for implementation of the scheme. Therefore, the financial burden the order would cast will solely lie on the pension fund threatening retirement benefits to be enjoyed by more than 6 crore workers of the country. The State Commission erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner in limine and further erred in not giving any cogent reasons qua the dismissal of the judgment passed by the District Forum. In strict sense a PF subscriber falls under the definition of 'consumer' of the petitioner, only in the case of Provident Fund Contribution (A/c No. 1) and Contribution made under Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme 1976 (A/c No.-21), as the petitioner charge administrative charges (consideration) for maintaining the same. But there is no consideration/administrative charges in maintaining a pension account (A/c No.10). Hence complaints in respect of Family Pension Scheme 1976 and EPS-1995 are not maintainable as the basic ingredient, which is necessary to establish relation between a consumer and service provider is lacking in this case. The petitioner receives contributions and administrative charges in the following prescribed accounts. It can be seen that there is no administrative charge on account of maintaining A/c No.10. The State Commission has failed to appreciate the amendment that has been taken place vide GSR 431(E) dated 15.06.2007 (deemed to have come into force from the date from which the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 came into force i.e. from 16th November 1995).

(v)     The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Notification GSR No.431 dated 15/06/2007 with an explicit deeming provision with effect from 16/11/1995 was formulated and notified by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by Section 6A read with sub section 7 of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). The State Commission failed to appreciate that the appellant is bound by the directions of the Government of India issued in terms of powers conferred by the Act and the Scheme. The State Commission failed to appreciate that Sec 7 of the Act confers power on the Central Government by notification in Official Gazette, add to, amend or vary, either prospectively or retrospectively the pension scheme. As such any re-interpretation of power conferred by an Act of Parliament on the Government by the District Forum is without jurisdiction. Only the constitutional Courts reserve the right and jurisdiction to reinterpret or review any law and subordinate legislation. The District Forum and the State Commission has gone beyond their legal mandate. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C)No.34622/2009 had a chance to decide on similar matters and the Hon'ble Court by its judgment dated 15.09.2015 dismissed the petition wherein the Hon’ble High Court had ordered that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the notification, they could challenge the impugned notification through writ petition. It is therefore submitted that the order issued by the District Forum and the State Commission are perverse in law as they are required to follow law laid down by the constitutional Courts. 

8.       Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below. 

8.1     Petitioner in addition to repeating what has been stated in para 7 under the grounds, has contended in its written arguments that the as per clarification received from the Head office vide letter dated 26.11.2013 and subsequent corrigendum, 2 years weightage can be given only in cases where superannuation pension i.e., pension at the age of 58 years had commenced prior to 24.07.2009.  Vide GSR No.594(E) dated 23.07.2009, a member who superannuated 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 a weightage of 2 years. Accordingly weightage of 2 years is considered in this case and arrears have been released. The pension was already sanctioned granting 2 years weightage to the petitioner as evident from Sr.No. (i) in the Table.  Pension has been granted as per the rules and provisions laid down in the EPF Act and Scheme and hence correct.  It is further contended that merely because the petitioner did not pay pension as demanded by the Respondent, the same does not amount to deficiency in service.  Further, if any doubt arises regarding calculation of pension by applying the scheme/rules same can be questioned only before the Hon’ble High Court which is an exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which alone can strike down a rule/law/scheme if the same is arbitrary and contrary to the Constitutional provisions.  Both the Fora below have erred in interpreting paragraph 12 of the scheme and further exceeding in their respective jurisdiction in directing calculating the pension with minimum pension for last service benefit at Rs.600/- as per para 12(4)(b).  The averments stated by the respondent are misleading.  The Respondent has already been sanctioned pension granting weightage of 2 years as per EPFO Head Office dated 25.07.2016.  The weightage and the pension revision was granted subsequent to the software modification contrary to the averments raised.  The details of the PPO issued to the Respondent are also reproduced below:

The Respondent was already granted pension after allowing weightage of 2 years for service rendered prior to and after 16.11.1995 as per above Table. 

8.2     On the other hand, it is contended by Respondent that the Respondent being a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme of 1952, made regular contributions under the Scheme.  The Government of India formulated a new scheme named Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (‘Pension Scheme 1971’) on 01.03.1971 to provide limited pension coverage to the spouse and minor children of the subscriber employees in event of death while in service.  The respondent became a subscriber of the said Scheme and remitted timely contributions as required under the Pension Scheme 1971.  Thereafter, the Government of India introduced another Employees Pension Scheme on 16.11.1995 (Pension Scheme of 1995) and respondent herein enrolled in the Pension Scheme of 1995.  The respondent retired on 15.03.2014 from the  services of FACT.  Thereafter respondent as per the pensionable salary of Rs.19136/- under the Pension Scheme 1995 the respondent was given a pension of Rs.2214/- per month.  Vide letter 19.01.2005 requested the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension) SRO, Ernakulam for a recalculation of the pensionable salary in terms of para 10(5) of the Pension Scheme 1995.  It is further contended that the respondent is entitled to be granted a weightage of two years over and above the pensionable services, since he had more than 20 years of service as per 10(2) of the Pension Scheme 1995 and thus the pensionable salary of the respondent herein should have been Rs.19363/-.  The respondent filed another application dated 21.03.2015 requesting for arrears of pension as 2 years weightage under para 10(2) of the Pension Scheme, 1995 was not considered while calculating the pensionable salary of the respondent.  The District Commission has rightly directed the  Petitioner herein to get the pension of respondent recomputed and allow the weightage of two years as per para 12(4) a &b and para 10(2) of the Pension Scheme 1995.  The District Commission also directed the respondent to pay the pension amount from the due date along with 8.5% interest p.a. till date of realization and directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards costs, failing which the respondent was entitled to 8.5% interest on cost.  It is further contended by the respondent that the contentions raised in the present revision petition relate to purely factual aspects which have already been weighed, appraised and appreciated by the State Commission.  The scope of the present revision petition is beyond the parameters which are specified under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  It is also contended that the respondent herein is a senior citizen who has been made to run from pillar to post to get his legal dues from the petitioner herein.  The petitioner in para 5 (e) of the Revision Petition has claimed that the pension computation being software driven requires modification in order to grant benefit weightage and revise the pensionary benefits as per order dated 25.07.2016.   The matter of carrying out modifications in the software in order to process the pending cases of revision of pensionary benefits is being currently looked into by the Petitioner.  The Petitioner has effectively admitted that there is a calculation mistake in the pensionable salary on its own part.  Both the Fora below have relied on the letter dated 25.07.2016 of the Employee Provident Fund Organisation,  Head Office, New Delhi wherein the head office had informed that the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India have decided that for granting benefit of two years weightage and the pensionable service would also include services rendered under the Pension Scheme of 1995 as well as erstwhile Pension Scheme of 1971 to fulfil the condition of 20 years or more pensionable service.  After considering the above said letter, the State Commission has upheld the order of the District Forum.  The Respondent contended that the revisional jurisdiction can only be exercised if there is a grave error in appreciating the evidence by the State Commission or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may necessitate interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction from this Commission.  In support of The Respondent has relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 11 SCC 269 and Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India Anr., Civil Appeal No. 432/2022 decided on 21.01.2022.

9.       The first and foremost issue that falls for our consideration is whether the issue(s) raised in the complaint are in the nature of a consumer dispute, whether the complainant has availed or hired any services from the OP for a consideration, if so, whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP.

The Petitioner has contended that:

-        State Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues involving interpretation of Statute/Rules/Circulars.

-        Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides for alternative remedies for resolution of disputes/grievances.

-        As per provisions of Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995, doubts with respect to interpretation of the scheme have to be decided by the Central Government. 

-        As Petitioner is a statutory authority, the disbursement of pensionary benefit or any amendment thereof can only be done as per existing statutory provisions.

-        The delay in disbursement of weightage benefit cannot be considered as deficiency of service as the same was released soon after the necessary clarification has been issued by the competent authority regarding eligibility for weightage benefit.

-        As 1952 Act provides for alternative and efficacious remedy, the consumer forum cannot interpret a rule or law governing payment of pension to an employee.  The consumer fora in exercise of Section 11 of the Act cannot interpret a rule or law and direct the Petitioner herein to pay pension as demanded by complainants. The action of Petitioner in refusing to pay pension as demanded by the complainants does not amount to deficiency in service.  The issue at hand is interpretation of the statutory pension scheme, consumer forum by entertaining it has overstepped its bounds.

-        The pension scheme is not run on any profit basis and Petitioner organization is also not receiving any consideration for implementation of the scheme. 

-        In strict sense a Provident Fund (PF) subscriber falls under the definition of ‘çonsumers’ of the Petitioner only in the case of PF contribution (A/c No.1) and contribution made under Employees Deposit linked Insurance Scheme 1976 (A/c No. 21), as the Petitioner charge administrative charges (consideration) for maintaining the same.  But there is no consideration/administrative charges in maintaining a pension account (A/c No. 10).  Hence, complaint in respect of Family Pension Scheme 1976 and EPS 1995 are not maintainable, as the basic ingredient, which is necessary to establish relation between a consumer and service provider is lacking in this case.

-        The Notification GSR No.431 dated 15/06/2007 with an explicit deeming provision with effect from 16/11/1995 was formulated and notified by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by Section 6A read with sub section 7 of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952). The State Commission failed to appreciate that the appellant is bound by the directions of the Government of India issued in terms of powers conferred by the Act and the Scheme. The State Commission failed to appreciate that Sec 7 of the Act confers power on the Central Government by notification in Official Gazette, add to, amend or vary, either prospectively or retrospectively the pension scheme. As such any re-interpretation of power conferred by an Act of Parliament on the Government by the District Forum is without jurisdiction. Only the constitutional Courts reserve the right and jurisdiction to reinterpret or review any law and subordinate legislation. The District Forum and the State Commission has gone beyond their legal mandate.

10.  The complainant in its complaint has stated the nature of complaint as ‘deficiency in service’ by the OP meted out to complainant while awarding his eligible monthly pension as per Employees’ Pension Scheme 1995.We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani (AIR 2008 SC 2957). In this case, the Hon’ble Court examined the applicability of the Act to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who oversees the operation of a Pension Scheme. The key issue was whether the Commissioner could be considered a 'service giver' under the definition of Section 2(1)(o) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case held that:-

“22. ……the non-applicability of the Consumer Protection Act to the case of the respondent must also be rejected on account of the fact that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, who is the person responsible for the working of the 1995 Pension Scheme, must be held to be a “service giver” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. Nor is this a case of rendering of free service or rendering of service under a contract of personal service so as to bring the relationship between the appellant and the respondent within the concept of “master and servant”. In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme. The same is the case in the other appeals as well.

23. In fact, the same proposition has been explained in Regl. Provident Fund Commr. v. Shiv Kumar Joshi [(2000) 1 SCC 98 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 37] , wherein in relation to the operation of the Consumer Protection Act to the Employees' Provident Fund Schemes it was held as follows: (SCC p. 111, para 13)

“13. A perusal of the Scheme clearly and unambiguously indicates that it is a ‘service’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) and the member a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. It is, therefore, without any substance to urge that the services under the Scheme are rendered free of charge and, therefore, the Scheme is not a ‘service’ under the Act. Both the State as well as the National Commission have dealt with this aspect in detail and rightly come to the conclusion that the Act was applicable in the case of the Scheme on the ground that its member was a ‘consumer’ under Section 2(1)(d) and the Scheme was a ‘service’ under Section 2(1)(o).”

11.     In this case there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner herein.  Extract of relevant paras of orders of State Commission is given below.

“The District Forum found that since the complainants were entitled to receive their pension every month after their retirement, any dispute regarding the quantum of pension fixed gives them a recurring cause of action. Their complaint being that the amount payable to them had been wrongly fixed was a continuing one. A portion of what was legitimately due to them, having been denied, the cause of action in this case was found be continuing. Therefore, the District Forum found that the complaints were not barred by the period of limitation of two years stipulated by Section 24 -A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum further pointed out that, the decision of the National Commission on the question of weightage was applicable to the present cases and that the complainants were entitled to get the benefit of paragraph 12(4) (a) and (b) and para 10 (2) of the Pension Scheme 1995. It also found that, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, that entitled the complainants to recover compensation, which has been fixed as Rs.10,000/- in favour of each complainant. It is aggrieved by the said order that the appellant has filed these appeals.

xxxx

The next question raised for consideration is whether the respondents are entitled to get the weightage of two years on their pensionable service under paragraph 10 (2) of the Pension Scheme 1995. The National Commission has in Revision Petition No.3970/2009 [Regional National Commission Vs. Mallikarjun Devendrappa Verapur), (evidenced by Exbt.A5 in C.C. No.74/17 against which appeal No.640/2018 is filed)] held that, a person who had rendered only 8 years service after the 1995 Pension Scheme came into force was entitled to get the weightage of 2 years under para 10 (2) since he had 24 years prior service. Though an SLP was filed by the appellant against the said judgment, the same was dismissed. Therefore, the judgment of the National Commission has become final. It is also binding on the appellant. In view of the above, the District Forum is right in finding that the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of paragraph 10 (2) of the Pension Scheme 1995. Apart from the above, it has been admitted by the appellant in the additional version filed in C.C.No. 74/2017 (A.640/2018) that the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India had decided that for granting two years weightage service rendered by an employee under the Pension Scheme of 1995 his service under the erstwhile Family Pension Scheme 1971 is also to be included. It is further stated in the additional version that the appellant had decided to revise the pension scheme benefits granted to the respondents also, by extending the benefit of 2  years weightage to them. Therefore, the District Forum was fully justified in granting reliefs to the respondents.

In the case of the complainant in C.C.No.829/2015 (A.641/2018) the respondent Sri. Joy had retired 2 years prior to his age of superannuation. However, instead of reducing 6% of his pension amount, 9% had been deducted and the District Forum has directed that the deduction be limited to 6% only. Their further complaint that the appellant had given them only a lesser amount of Rs.800/- per month in terms of paragraph 12 (3) (a) of the Pension Scheme 1995 was found to be justified since the Government of India had issued a notification, GSR No.431 dated 15.06.2007 recasting paragraph 12 of the Pension Scheme 1995 and sub paragraphs (1) to (7) with a deeming provision giving effect to the Pension Scheme 1995 from 16.11.1995. In view of the above, a direction to verify and re-compute the pension amount of each of the respondents and to grant them the minimum past service benefit has also been issued. We do not find any infirmity in the above directions. Therefore, the findings and directions of the District Forum are sustained.

The District Forum has considered the issues correctly and in the proper perspective. We bear in mind the fact that, the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 is a beneficial legislation intended to provide some relief to the employees of the covered establishments, in their old age. The fund constituted with contributions made by employers and employees. The Pension Scheme is intended to help the employees in their old age when they become weak, infirm and afflicted with various ailments.”

12.     As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”   

13.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on 8 September, 2022, held that:-

“13. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction 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 its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

14. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”

14.     In view of the foregoing, we find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The State Commission has given a well-reasoned order, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, all the Revision Petitions are dismissed. 

15.     The pending IAs in the above cases, if any, also stand disposed off.