Regional Provident Fund Commissioner And Ors. vs M. Krishna And Ors.

THIS order shall decide above said 6 Revision Petitions. All these cases have been filed by the pensioners against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, which have the common point of Law and arisen out of the common order passed by the State Commission. There is a delay of 57 days in filing the Revision Petition No. 1568/2014, 62 days in RP/1644/2014, 77 days in RP/1781/2014, 77 days in RP/1782/2014, 77 days in RP/1783/2014 and 78 days in filing the RP/1795/2014. Separate applications have been moved for condonation of delay, wherein similar point has been raised. It is contended that the 50 appeals were decided by the State Commission and it took time in filing the Revision Petitions. It may be also mentioned here that remaining petitions have already been disposed of.

HOWEVER , in the interest of justice, we hereby condone the delay in all the cases. Both the Fora have decided the case against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hyderabad and others. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the instant Revision Petitions have been filed before us. Learned Counsel for the petitioners advanced no arguments. He conceded that these cases are identical to the 44 Revision Petitions, which were dismissed earlier.

HOWEVER , we have gone through the pleadings. We find in these cases, a new plea has been taken. It is contended that in these cases the respondents/complainants opted for reduced pension (falls under the category of early pension) and the order passed by the State Commission cannot be applied/implemented in these cases as it violates para 10(2) of the E.P.S. Act. In Revision Petition No. 1588 of 2614, the claimant claimed the reduced early pension under Section 12(7) of EPS, 1995, at the age of 50 years before attaining the age of 58 years. It is contended that he is not entitled to get 2 years'' weightage. Likewise in Revision Petition No. 1644 of 2014, the complainant claimed reduced early pension at the age of 56 years, in RP/1781/2014, the complainant made similar claim at the age of 55 years, in case No. 1782 of 2014, the complainant made the claim at the age of 57 years, in case RP/1783/2014, the complainant made a claim at the age of 55 years and in case 1795/2014, the claim was made at the age of 53 years.

PARAS 10(2) and 12(7) of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, run as follows: "10.(2) In the case of the member who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years, 3[and] who has rendered 20 years pensionable service or more, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of 2 years."

"12.(7) A member, if he so desires, may be allowed to draw an early pension from a date earlier than 58 years of age but not earlier than 50 years of age. In such cases, the amount of pension shall be reduced at the rate of 1[four per cent] for every year the age falls short of 58 years.]"

A conjoint reading of these two provisions of Law clearly goes to show that there lies no rub in giving advantage of two years as laid down in para 10(2) even to those pensioners who have availed the benefit of Para 12(7). This nowhere debars, such pensioners should not be given the weightage of two years. The assumption by the OPs is all wet. They have tried to harass the pensioners, who are senior citizens, to no end. They should be dealt with kid gloves. The Revision Petitions are lame of strength, therefore, the same are dismissed.