This revision petition is directed against the order of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, “State Commission”) dated 2.9.2013 whereby State Commission allowed the appeal No.494 of 2013 preferred by the respondents/opposite parties and set aside the order dated 6.5.2013 of the District Forum, Panchkula.

2.   Briefly put, facts relevant for disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner/complainant was an employee of HMT Ltd. The petitioner took voluntarily retirement on 30.11.2000.  He was covered under Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.  As per scheme, monthly pension of the petitioner was calculated at Rs.725/- p.m.  The petitioner opted for 1/3^rd of commutation of his pension.  Thus, he was paid Rs.24,200/- in lieu of his commuted pension  vide PPO No.8292 dated 30.11.2004.  Thereafter, the petitioner started getting monthly pension of Rs.410/- after deduction of the commutation of 1/3^rd of his pension.  Later on, pension was subsequently, increased to Rs.435/- w.e.f. 5.9.2001 after the expiry of 100 months’ duration from the date of commutation of pension.  The petitioner approached the opposite party to restore his pension w.e.f. 1.10.2011.  The opposite party denied to restore the original pension as there was no provision for restoration of commuted pension under Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.  Claiming this to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum, Panchkula by filing a consumer complaint.

3.   The opposite parties resisted the complaint on the plea that the opposite parties were justified in declining to restore the commuted pension as there was no provision for commuted pension under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.

4.     On consideration of pleadings and evidence, the District Forum allowed the compliant and directed thus :-

“………we hereby allow the instant complaint and direct the Ops as under :

1. To pay the denial amount of Rs.217/- towards pension to the complainant w.e.f. 1.10.2011 till date alongwith interest of @ 9% per annum on the denial amount.
2. After compliance as per (i) the complainant is entitled for consolidate pension of Rs.652/- (Rs.435/- + Rs.217/-).
3. To pay Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation to the complainant on account of physical and mental agony as well as cost of litigation.”

5.       Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondents/opposite parties approached the State Commission in appeal and State Commission vide its impugned order allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. The main premises for allowing the appeal was that there is no provision in Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 to restore the commuted pension once the pensioner has opted for commutation of his pension. Relevant observation of the State Commission are reproduced as under :-

“The question for consideration before us is as to whether the non-restoration of the pension of the complainant by the opposite parties can be termed as deficiency in service or not.  To solve the controversy between the parties, the relevant provision of Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 needs to be noticed.  During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention towards para 12-A of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, reproduced as under :-

“A member eligible to pension may, in lieu of pension normally admissible under paragraph 12, opt on completion of three years from the commencement of this scheme to commute upto a maximum of one third of his pension so as to receive hundred times the monthly pension so commuted as commuted value of pension.  Balance pension will be paid on monthly basis as per options exercised under paragraph 13.”

Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in the above cited provision of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995, the commutation of pension does not relate to any period i.e., months and years, rather the commutation was upto a maximum of one third of the pension of employee (complainant) so as to receive hundred times the monthly pension. The above provision nowhere speaks about the restoration of complainant’s pension.

We find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellants/opposite parties.  There is no enabling provision in the rules for restoration of commuted pension. The complainant cannot take the benefits of Central Government Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, which are applicable to employees of Public Sector Undertaking under which they get pension.  Thus, without there being any provision in the rules for restoration of pension, the opposite parties cannot be termed as deficient in service.  District Consumer Forum has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in its true perspective and erred in allowing the complaint.  Thus, the impugned order cannot sustain.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.”

6.     The petitioner/complainant has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reasons that the State Commission has passed the order in total disregard of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Welfare Association of Absorbed Central Government Employees in Public Enterprises Vs. Union of India, 1996 SCT P-789 and in the matter Deokinandan Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and others, AIR 1971 SC 1409.

7.   The judgment relied upon by the respondents are not applicable to facts of this case as said judgments are based upon the interpretation of Central Civil Services Rules 1972 and Bihar Service Code (1952).  The petitioner is not governed by those Rules.  His case has to be considered under the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995.

8.   Admittedly in this case, the petitioner opted for voluntarily retirement and opted for 1/3^rd of commutation of his pension in terms of Rules.  Rule 13 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 deals with the options for return of capital in which reads as under :-

“13.   Options for return of capital – (1) A member eligible to pension may in lieu of pension normally admissible under paragraph 12, (subject to commutation of pension, if any, under paragraph 12-A) opt to draw for reduced pension and avail of return of capital under any one of the three alternatives given below :-

Explanation 1.  In alternative 2, if the (spouse) dies or remarries before the death of the member, capital equal to 90 times the original monthly pension shall be paid to the nominee on the member’s death.

Explanation 2. – In alternative 3, if the member dies before the end of the 20 year period, the pension shall be paid to his nominee for the balance period.

Explanation 3. – In the case of a member who is eligible for permanent total disablement pension, and where the payment of such pension is to commence before his attaining the age of 50 years, the options shall also be admissible but in such cases the actual pension payable shall be reduced by 1 per cent and the return of capital shall be further reduced by Rs.1,000/- for every year by which the age at the commencement of pension falls short of 50 years.

{Explanation 4. – In cases of exercise of option for commutation under paragraph 12-A, balance monthly pension payable after commutation shall be deemed to be the original monthly pension for the purpose of this paragraph}

(2)  The option under sub-paragraph (1) shall be exercised by the member at the time of submission of the application form for pension in accordance with the provisions of this scheme. The option once exercised shall be final.  If no option is exercise, the member shall be deemed not to have exercised any option under this paragraph and his/her pension shall be determined under the provisions of paragraph 12.

(3) Notwithstanding that the capital is returned under this paragraph the widow/children shall continue to be eligible for normal widow pension/children pension/orphan pension under paragraph 16 of this scheme from the date immediately following the date of death of the member.”

9.    On reading of the above, it is clear that a member of Employees Pension Scheme on his retirement has an option whether to avail off the full pension or to commute a part of the pension and receive the lumpsum amount in lieu thereof.  Clause 13 (2) of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 stipulates that the option if exercised is final and not revocable.  The scheme does not provide for restoration of commuted pension after expiry of stipulated period.  In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner opted for commutation of his pension under the scheme and received the lumpsum amount in lieu of the commuted portion of pension.  Thus, in view of Rule 13 (2) of the scheme, the petitioner after having exercised his option cannot claim the restoration of the commuted portion of pension.  The respondent department while denying to restore the commuted pension has acted in accordance with Rule 13 of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.  Therefore, it cannot be said to be deficient in service.

      Order of the State Commission is well reasoned and does not suffer from any material irregularity or jurisdictional error which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.