BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.529 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.153 OF 2012 DISTRICT FORUM GUNTUR
Between:
V.Venkata Ratnam S/o Chintaiah
aged about 72 years, Occ: Retd. Driver of
APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur Dist.
R/o D.No.2-247, Morlavari Palem Village
Beside Nethaji Nagar, Peteru Post
Repalle Mandal, Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No.534 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.158 OF 2012
Between:
M.Satyanarayana S/o Rangaiah
Aged about 72 years, Occ: Retd.Conductor
of APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur District
R/o D.No.10-13-11, Thummalavari Street,
12th Ward, Repalle, Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No.538 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.163 OF 2012
Between:
K.Nagendra Rao S/o Veeraiah
Aged about 72 years, Occ: Retd.Driver
of APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur District
R/o Dronadulavari Street, Near Ramakrishna
Tutorial College, Repalle, Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No.544 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.176 OF 2012
Between:
P.Koteswara Rao S/o Subbaiah
Aged about 65 years, Occ: Retd.Driver
of APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur District
R/o Jillepalli Village via Kanagala
Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No.548 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.182 OF 2012
Between:
P.Nageswara Rao S/o Srikrishnaiah
aged about 69 years, Occ:Retd.Driver of
of APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur District
R/o D.No.1-83, Harijanawada Road, Pamidimarru
Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No.552 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.199 OF 2012
Between:
Borra Gudarankaiah S/o Vullakkaiah
Aged about 66 years, Occ: Retd.Depot Clerk
of APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur District
R/o Borravaipalem Village, Kuchinapudi Post
Nizampatnam Mandal, Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No.555 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.205 OF 2012
Between:
Sure Siva Koteswara Rao S/o Nagaiah
Aged about 63 years, Occ: Retd.Superintendent (P)
APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur District
R/o Old Town, Zamindar Port, Gayatri Temple
3rd Ward, Repalle Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No.560 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.224 OF 2012
Between:
Ch.Sambaiah S/o Seetha Ramaiah
Aged about 65 years, Occ: Retd.ADC
of APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur District
R/o H.No.11-15-20, 10th Ward, Vennamvari Street
Repalle, Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No.562 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.227 OF 2012
Between:
Kanaparthi Nancharaiah S/o Meesalaiah
Aged about 64 years, Occ: Retd.Dy.Suptd.
of APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur District
R/o Vital Nagar, New Panduranga Temple
Perala Chirala, Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No.565 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.233 OF 2012
Between:
V.Sreenivasa Rao S/o V.Subba Rao
Aged about 72 years, Occ: Retd.Cleaner
of APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur District
R/o Bala Vidyaniketan Road, Isukapalli
Repalle, Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
F.A.No.566 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO.1 OF 2013
Between:
M.Venkateswara Rao S/o Subbaiah
Aged about 70 years, Occ: Retd.DC
in APSRTC, Repalle Depot, Guntur District
R/o Zillepalli Village, Thatapalli Post
Nagaram Mandal, Guntur District
Appellant/complainant
A N D
1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan, Barkatpura, Hyderabad
2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, 3rd Lane, Krishna Nagar,
Guntur District
Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the appellant M/s Ramakoteswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents M/s K.Raghuram Reddy
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE I/C PRESIDENT
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
THURSDAY THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The batch of 11 appeals bearing similar facts has been taken for disposal by a common order. F.A.No.529 of 2013 is taken as lead case.
2. The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant worked as a T.I.III in APSRTC Repalle Guntur District and opted for Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The complainant had put 23 years of part service upto 15-11-1995 and thereafter 13 years of service totalling to 36 years’ service. The complainant submits that his details regarding service particulars as follows:
P.F.A/c.No. AP/Hyd/295/43236
Date of Birth 01.07.1940
Part Service Upto 15-11-1995 22 years
Actual service 3 years
Total service 25 years
Age as on 15-11-95 56 years
The wage on 15-11-1995
Pensionable Salary Rs.5,000/-
3. Basing on the above information, the complainant submits that the opposite parties wrongly fixed his monthly pension at an amount of `455/- in both accounts under pensioner service benefit and past service benefit. The opposite parties did not give weightage of 2 years for more than 20 years of service under para (10)2 of 1995 scheme. The opposite parties are paying only `455/- as monthly pension instead of `865/-. There is difference of amount of `413/- (`868-455) and therefore they have to pay arrears of balance `413/- from the date of retirement i.e. 01.07.1998 with interest at 18% p.a. by paying the monthly pension of `868/- with interest. The arrears of monthly pension are as follows:
| Sl.No. | Year | Original monthly Difference amount | Interest 18% p.a. |
| 1. | 01-4-2010 to 31-3-2011 | `4,956/- | `892/- |
| 2. | 01-4-2011 to 31-3-2012 | `4,956/- | `892/- |
| | Total | `9,912/- | `1784/- |
4. Opposite parties did not take into consideration para 2(1), 2(VI), 2(VIII), 2(IX) and 2(XV) and also failed to see para 9(b) and 10(2) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The complainant is also a member of the Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and paid his hard earned money but the opposite parties failed to calculate the past service contributions. The complainant has given several representations to give weightage of 2 years under para 10(2) of Employee’s Pension Scheme, 1995 and to fix monthly pension properly by counting the past pension of the complainant properly but the opposite parties neither rejected the claim nor informed the same either to the complainant or to the Retired Employees’ Association. Therefore, the complainant filed complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay the arrears including interest at an amount of `11,696/- with future interest at 12% p.a. by paying future monthly pension as calculated by the complainant i.e. an amount of Rs.868/- and to direct the opposite parties to pay `10,000/- towards mental agony with interest at 12% p.a.
5. The respondents resisted the claim on the premise that the appellant is not entitled for weightage of two years over and above his pensionable service i.e., the service rendered from 16.11.1995 to the date of retirement as per the provisions of the Employees’ Pension Scheme,1995. The employee is relieved of making contribution under the existing scheme. The employer alone has contributed @8.33% of the wages and the appellant has already enjoyed the benefit under the previous scheme and as such he cannot claim advantage of double benefit. Eligible service means the aggregate of actual service and past service and pensionable service is not eligible service. The complainant completed fifteen years of service after the advent of EPS scheme, 1995. New entrants into job after 16.11.1995 are only entitled to weightage. The authorities fixed the pension correctly and need not be corrected and di not commit any deficiency of service.
6. The complainant filed his affidavit and the documents, Exs.A1 to A4. The opposite parties neither affidavit nor the documents have been filed.
7. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the opposite parties fixed the pension of the complainant at Rs.505/- more than the minimum prescribed under rule 12(5)(ii) of the Employee’s Pension Scheme, 1995.
8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the District Forum has wrongly applied the Table B and it failed to appreciate the paragraph 12(5) of the Employees Pensions Scheme,1995 which provides for calculating the pension at `500/- per month on the aggregate of actual service and past service and it would provide eligible service of 24 years.
9. It is contended that the appellant had put up past service of 22 years till 15.11.1995 and actual service of 3 years from 16.11.1995 and eligible service of 25 years. It is contended that the District Forum failed to appreciate paragraph 12 of the Scheme and failed to determine the eligible service of the appellant under paragraph 9 of the Scheme and that the District Forum failed to follow the order of the National Commission passed in RP No. 3970 of 2009 decided on 29.06.2010.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent has filed written arguments.
11. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?
12. The appellant was the employee of Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and enrolled as a member of Provident Fund established under the provisions of Employees provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 and the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation is an exempted establishment as provided by Section 17 of Employees provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
13. The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation used to deduct the provident fund from its employees and by adding matching amount the Corporation used to deposit it with the Provident Fund Trust managed by the Corporation and the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation used to deposit pension fund with the first respondent . It is not disputed that the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation has been paying provident fund to its employees at the time of their retirement from service and the second respondent has been releasing the pension as per the parameters providing for entitlement of the retired employee in terms of the provisions of the Employees provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952.
14. The appellant’s case as seen from the averments of the complaint is that the respondents fixed his monthly pension in terms of paragraph 11(3) and 12(3) of the Employees’ Pension Shceme,1995 and the respondents had not given him the weightage if 2 years to him for his service exceeding 20 years under paragraph 10(2) of the Scheme under paragraph 10(2) of the Scheme and that the respondents had not extended past service benefit under paragraph 12(3) of the Scheme and wrongly fixed monthly pension at `454/- instead of fixing it at `868/- and as such the respondents have to pay the difference amount with interest thereon, an amount of `79,435/- to him.
15. The District Forum has observed that the appellant had put up 22 years of past service and 3 years of pensionable service and it held that the respondents had not added two years of weightage to pensionable service. The District Forum has taken the pensionable salary of the appellant as `5,000/- and arrived at the conclusion that the appellant’s pensions could be at `357/-. Pargraphs 9 and 10 of the Order read as under:
9. The service particulars of the complainant as mentioned in Ex.A-1 are not disputed. The complainant had put up 22 years of past service and 3 years of pensionable service. As seen from Ex.A-1 the opposite parties did not add two years of weightage to pensionable service.
10. The complainant in para III (1) of his complaint mentioned that his pensionable salary was Rs.5000/-. While calculating the pensionable service benefit the complainant in para III (3) mentioned his pensionable salary as Rs.6500/-. In Ex.A-1 pension payment order pensionable salary was mentioned as Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the complainant’s pensionable salary has to be taken as Rs.5,000/-. This Forum already observed that the complainant is entitled to the benefit of addition of two years’ service. If that is taken into consideration the pension could be Rs.5,000x5/70= 357 pm.
16. Rule 12(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme provides for the parameters for calculation of and determination of pension in terms of the years of past service vis-à-vis the salary drawn by the employee which reads as under:
11. Rule 12 (3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme as substituted by G.S.R. 431 (E) dated the 15th June, 2007 was given retrospective affect from 16-11-95 and it reads as follows (43rd Edition – February, 2012 published by M/s Madras Book Agency):
“(3) In the case of an existing member in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension is after 16th November, 2005:
(i) Superannuation or early pension shall be equal to the aggregate of: -
(a) Pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of pensionable service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or Rs 635/- per month whichever is more;
(b) Past service pension shall be as given below: -
The past service pension payable on completion of 58 years of age on the 16th November, 1995.
| Years of Past Service | Salary upto Rs.2500/- per month | Salary more than Rs.2500/- per month |
| (1) | (2) | (3) |
| Upto 11 years | 80 | 85 |
| More than 11 years but upto 15 years | 95 | 105 |
| More than 15 years but less than 20 years | 120 | 135 |
| Beyond 20 years | 150 | 170 |
17. The amount under column (2) or (3) above, as the case may be, shall be multiplied by the factor given in Table ‘B’ corresponding to the period between the 16th November, 1995 and the date of exit to arrive at past service pension payable.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that provisions of Paragraph 12(5)(ii) of the Employees Pensions Scheme is applicable to the case of the appellant and the District Forum has wrongly applied Table ‘B’ without appreciating the past service of the appellant and paragraphs 9 and 12 of the Employees Pensions Scheme.
19. Paragrpah 12(5) of the Employees Pensions Scheme provides for determination of monthly pension of an employee who retired prior to 16.11.2000 at a minimum amount of Rs.500/- provided the employee had put up minimum period of 24 years’ service. The paragraph reads as under:
As the complainant retired prior to 16-11-2000 he comes under the purview of Rule 12(V) of Employees’ Pension Scheme and it reads as follows:
“In the case of existing member and in respect of whom the date of commencement of pension is before the 16th November, 2000-
i) The superannuation or early pension shall be equal to the aggregate of :-
a) pension as determined under sub-paragraph (2) for the period of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or Rs.335/- per month whichever is more;
b) past service pension as provided in sub-paragraph (3).
ii) The aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above shall be subjected to the minimum of Rs.500/- per month, provided the eligible service is 24 years. Provided further, if it is less than 24 years the pension shall be proportionately lesser but subject to the minimum of Rs.265/- per month.”
20. The District Forum held that phrases used in Paragraph 12(5) the Employees Pensions Scheme have to be read together and not distinctively as it observed in paragraph 15 of the order and concluded that the appellant is entitled to pension of Rs.505 per month. Paragraphs 15,17 and 18 of the order read as under:
15. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that under Rule 12(V)(ii) the complainant is entitled to the minimum of Rs.500/- pm as past service benefit and Rs.335/- towards pensionable service. The phrase ‘the aggregate of (a) and (b) calculated as above’ used in clauses 12(5)(ii) has to be read together but not disjunctively. In view of the above discussion the said contention of the complainant is devoid of merit.
17. The pensionable salary was Rs.5000/- and pensionable service is 3 years. It was already observed that the complainant is entitled to weightage of two years. On calculation the complainant is entitled to Rs.5000x7/70=357/-.
18. In view of the above discussion, we opine that the complainant is entitled to Rs.357/- actual service benefit (+) Rs.103/- past service benefit totaling to Rs.460/-. The opposite parties fixed the pension of the complainant at Rs.505/- more than the minimum prescribed under rule 12(5)(ii) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. Therefore it cannot be said that the opposite parties fixed the pension of the complainant erroneously. We therefore answer this point against the complainant.
21. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondents calculated the pension payable to the appellant at Rs.551/- per month which is the revised pension. He has submitted that the District Forum failed to consider paragraph 2(xv) of the EPS,1995. In the written arguments in para 5 the calculation of past service benefit is shown as under:
It is submitted that the complainant completed 3 years of service after the advent of the Scheme ( in pensionable service) as such the complainant is not entitled for weightage of 2 years over and above pensionable service as per Sec.10(2) of the scheme. The benefit of weightage is applicable only for the service rendered with effect from 16.11.1995, by contributing to the fund, which is called as ‘pensionable service’ as defined under para 2(xv) of EPS, 1995. The Hon’ble Consumer Forum failed to appreciate the above provisions and erroneously taken the calculation submitted by the complainant where he had taken the number of years of service as 5 instead of 3 where the member had taken 2 years as weightage erroneously. In fact, following is the actual calculation and which is only the correct monthly pension as payable under the EPS, 1995 as per the provisions as envisaged under the aforesaid scheme.
Past service benefit: ( as per the table given at para 12(3): Rs.170/- for rendering 22 years of past service where the salary is more than Rs.2500/- as on 15.11.1995 which is to be multiplied by the factor, after which the correct figure to be taken towards past service benefit comes as Rs.216/-. This is calculated basing on the past service rendered upto 15.11.1995 and the service remaining in respect of the complainant from 16.11.1995 to the date of leaving or 58 yrs of age whichever is earlier.
Pension as per Formula under the new pension scheme: 5000 (pensionable salary) X 3 (pensionable service)/70 which comes as Rs.214/- (subject to the minimum of Rs.335/-)
Now after adding both the amounts together the original pension payable to pensioner comes as Rs.551/- (216+335) (Revised Pension)
Accordingly, the petitioners/opposite parties fixed the pension of the complainant @ Rs.551/- as per his entitlement under the scheme. As the appellant has opted for Return of Capital, his monthly pension was fixed as Rs.496/-. The complainant has wrongly taken his pensionable salary as Rs.6500/-. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on part of the respondents and there is no mistake in arriving at the correct quantum of pension by the EPFO. The District Consumer Forum has felt that the respondents have given more pension than eligible. Accordingly the present appeal is liable to be rejected.
22. A brief perusal of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 defines in Section 2(ii) as follows:
‘actual service’ means the aggregate of periods of service rendered from the 16th November, 1995 or from the date of joining any establishment whichever is later to the date of exit from the employment of the establishment covered under the Act;
Section 2(xii)
“past service” means the period of service rendered by an existing member from the date of joining Employees’ Family Pension Fund till the 15th November, 1995;
Section 2(xv)
“pensionable service” means the service rendered by the member for which contributions have been [received or are receivable];
Para 10(2) 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 a weightage of 2 years.
23. The learned counsel for the complainant is relying on para 12(i)(b) which reads as follows:
Retirement pension, if he has rendered eligible service of 20 years or more and retires or otherwise ceases to be in the employment before attaining the age of 58 years
24. The learned counsel also relied on para 12(3) which reads as follows:
In the case of an employee[who was a member of the ceased Family Pension Scheme, 1971] and who has not attained the age of 48 years on the 16th November, 1995;
Superannuation/retirement/short service pension shall be equal to the aggregate of –
a) Pension as determined under sub-paragraph 2 for the period of pensionable service rendered from 16th November, 1995 or Rs.635/- per month whichever is more;
b) Past service pension benefit shall be as given below:-
The past service benefit payable on completion of 58 years of age on 16-11-1995.
| Years of Past service Salary upto Rs.2500 Salary more than Per month Rs.2500 per month |
| 1 2 3 |
| i) Upto 11 years 80 85 |
| ii) More than 11 years but Upto 15 years 95 105 |
| iii) More than 15 years but Less than 20 years 120 135 |
| iv) Beyond 20 years 150 170 |
Subject to a minimum of Rs.800/- per month provided the past service is 24 years. If the aggregate service of the member is less than 24 years, the pension and the benefit commuted as above shall be reduced proportionately subject to a minimum of Rs.450 per month.
(c) On completion of the age of 58 years after 16-11-1995, the benefit under column (2) or column (3) above, as the case may be, shall be multiplied by the factor given in Table B-corresponding to the period between 16-11-1995 and date of attainment of age 58 to arrive at past service pension payable]
25. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondents fixed the pension of the appellant at `551/- per month and the appellant had opted for return of capital, his monthly pension was fixed at `496/-. He has submitted that after deducting return of Capital from the monthly pension, the appellants pension was fixed at `505/-. We do not see any discrepancy in the calculation of the amount so as to fix the monthly pension of the appellant as also no misappreciation or mis-interpretation of para 12(5)(ii) of the Employee’s Pension Scheme 1995 by the District Forum is established by the appellant. As such the appeal is liable to be dismissed and for the very same reason, the other appeals are liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeals F.A.No.529, 534, 538, 544, 548, 552, 555, 560, 562, 565, 566 of 2013 are dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.28.11.2013
కె.ఎం.కె.*
I have gone through the draft order prepared by my learned brother and with due respect I do not agree with the findings recorded and the conclusion arrived at by him. I am of the opinion that the findings arrived at by me along with Ms M.Shreesha, the then I/c President in F.A.Nos. 721 of 2013 to F.A.No. 768/2013, F.A.No.329/13 and F.A.No.330/2013 against C.C.Nos. 152/2012,154/2012, 155/12 to 157/12, 159/12 to 162/12, 164/12 to 167/12, 171/12 to 175/12, 177/12, 179/12, 204/12, 208/12 to 211/12, 213/12, 217/12, 218/12, 220/12 221/12, 180/12, 181/12, 184/12 to 187/12, 197/12, 198/12, 201/12, 203/12, 222/12, 223/12, 225/12, 226/12, 229/12, 231/12, 232/12, 02/13, 99/12 and 100/12 Dist. Forum, Guntur dated 27.9.2013 shall hold good to these cases also as these cases are part of the same batch.
Sd/-
( THOTA ASHOK KUMAR)
MEMBER
