J.M. Malik, Presiding Member
1. This common order shall decide above detailed six revision petitions. We have taken the facts from revision petition No. 1617 of 2014 titled as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Guntur through Asst. P.F. Commissioner-Legal, Delhi vs. S. Siva Sankar Rao.
2. The State Commission had decided 50 cases through one common order. Before us, revision petitions were filed against 38 appeals. However, out of 38 revisions, 28 revision petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. Now, 13 revision petitions are pending before us.
3. Out of these revision petitions, we have issued notices in Revision Petitions No. 1588, 1644, 1795, 1781, 1782 and1783 of 2014.
4. There is a delay of 61 days in filing the revision petitions No. 1617, 1618, 1619, 1620 of 2014. Also, there is a delay of 62 days in filing revision petition No. 1645 of 2014. There is a delay of 78 days in revision petition No. 1796 of 2014. In each revision petition, an application for condonation of delay has been filed. Each case has the same ground for condonation of delay.
5. The delay has been explained in paras, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the application for condonation of delay moved in revision petition No. 1618 of 2014 titled as Regional P.F. Commissioner Guntur through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (Legal) Delhi vs. Ch. Nageswara Rao, which read:
œ3. That on 21.10.2013, certified copy of the order got ready by the registry of the State Commission, and on 31.10.2013, Certified copy was received by the office of the Sub-Regional Office Guntur.
4. That thereafter on 10.01.2014, after verification of the order in respect of 50 appeals RPFC-Guntur communicated the office of RPFC-Delhi to file revision petition in respect of 12 caes.
5. That after receiving communication from SRO-Guntur Regional Office further examined the case in view of the circular issued by the department and judgments passed by this Honble Commission in identical matters, hence it took time to take decision.
6. That thereafter on 20.02.2014 Panel counsel engaged for filing Revision Petition and after receiving the required documents from RPFC-Guntur this petition got prepared.
7. That as the three offices one at Guntur, 2nd one at Hyderabad and third one at Delhi are involved in decision making process this delay in filing the instant revision petition.?
6. We are not satisfied with the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay. The Apex Court has already held that departmental delay cannot be made a ground for condonation of delay. The expression sufficient cause cannot be erased from Section 5 of the Limitation Act by adopting excessive liberal approach, which would defeat the very purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and defeat the very purpose of Consumer Protection Act. There must be some cause which can be termed as sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay.
7. Recently the Supreme Court of India in an authority reported in case of Office of the Chief Post Master General and Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. 2012 STPL(Web) 132 (SC) held:
œ13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.?
8. It is also pertinent to mention here that in these cases, day to day delay was not explained. The cases are barred by limitation.
9. This view neatly dovetails with the following authorities. In AnshulAggarwal v. New OkhlaIndustrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC),R.B. Ramlingam v. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361,and BikramDass vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221.
10. The latest view taken by the Supreme Court is in Civil Appeal No. 19896 of 2013 in the case œM/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian?, decided on 12th July 2013 wherein SLP was dismissed upholding the judgment of this Commission, where the delay of 78 days was not condoned.
11. Again the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33792 of 2013 in Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board and Anr. V. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, decided on 19.11.2013, upholding the order of this Commission where 77 days delay was not condoned.
12. Above all, in Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.,decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013, decided on 17.12.2013, upholding the order of this Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.
13. Consequently, we find that the case is barred by time. However, we refrain from giving the view on the merits of this case.
14. Now let us advert to the merits of this case. 27 identical matters have been decided by this Commission on 09.04.2014. The main revision petition is revision petition No. 765 of 2014 titled as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Vasant Madhav Kerur decided on 9.4.2014. The issues raised therein are almost similar to the issues raised in these revision petitions.
15. However, the facts of revision petition No. 1618 of 2014 titled as Regional P.F. Commissioner through Asst. P.F. Commissioner (legal) Delhi vs. Ch. Nageswara Rao are these. The complainant worked as a conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Repalle Guntur District. He had rendered 10 years service upto 15.11.1995 and till his retirement, he served total service as 25 years. The complainant was a member of family pension Scheme 1971 and paid his hard earned money under such pension scheme. His past service contributions were not calculated. The complainant opted the Employees Pension Scheme 1995. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, opposite party No. 1 and Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, opposite party No. 2 failed to give weightage of two years under para 10(2) of the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 and wrongly fixed the pension as Rs.1656/- instead of Rs.2378/-.
16. The complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to fix the pension of the complainant at Rs.2023/- per month raising from Rs.1656/- the earlier fixed pension w.e.f. 1.12.2010. The opposite parties were directed to pay arrears of provident fund @ 367/- per month till fixation of pension at Rs.2023/-
17. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal of the complainant alongwith 49 other appeals.
18. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that these cases are different from six other cases in which the notices were issued by this Commission. In these cases, the past service is also included in pensionable service and two years weightage was extended. Further while doing so, following provisions were not taken into consideration. It was argued that past service and actual service is to be added only to decide eligibility for pension and EPS 1995 explicitly provides for the same.
19. Again, past service i.e. contributory service under EFPS 1971, prior to 16.11.1995 the contribution rate was only 1.16 % + 1.6% + 1.16%, whereas it is 8.33% +1.16% under EPS-1995. Consequently benefits cannot be the same for different contributory rates, therefore, the provisions of EPS-1995 specifically provides different benefits for past service and pensionable service. Consequently these persons are not eligible for second years weightage.
20. All these arguments are bereft of merits. Para 10(2) of the EPS 1995 clearly, specifically and unequivocally provides that who superannuates on attaining the age of 58 years and who had rendered 20 years pensionableservice, his pensionable service shall be increased by adding a weightage of two years. The pensionable service is a service for which contributions are received or receivable under new Scheme [Para 2 (xv)] whereas past service means service rendered by an existing member from the date of attaining till 15.11.1995 [ Para 2(xii)].
21. The State Commission has placed reliance on the above detailed judgment passed by this Bench III (2013) CPJ 244 NC between Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur vs. Vasant Madhav Kerur and Others, anotherjudgment of this Commission reported in Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner vs. Mallikarjun Devendrappa Varapur, in revision petition No. 3970 of 2009 dated 29.6.2010.
22.For the reasons detailed above and the reason given in the case of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Vasant Madhav Kerur, we hereby dismiss the revision petitions. It is always desirable that the pensioners should be treated with kid-gloves but it is unfortunate that in our times, there are exasperated by senseless delay. The department is always interested in wasting more money and time when it is involved in such like frivolous and vexatious litigation. Therefore, we dismiss all the revision petitions with costs of Rs.10,000/- each under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which be paid to the respondent/complainant through demand draft within 90 days otherwise it will carry interest @12% p.a. till its realization.