Heard. In view of the reason given in the application, delay in filing of revision petitions is condoned. By this order, we propose to dispose of above-noted 30 revision petitions involving similar question of law. Briefly put facts relevant for the disposal of these revision petitions are that on the complaints filed by respective complainants against the petitioner and respondent No.2 following orders were passed: etition under consideration order is accepted partly and is decided in this way that respondent should ensure that pension is to be sanctioned to petitioner Laxmi Chand Jain under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and action will be taken accordingly different provisions of scheme specially section 18 and 17A for this and penal interest will be paid at the rate to 12% according to section 17A for the period at least from 1.6.08 till the payment actually made to him on appear amount of due pension accordingly. These all proceedings should be completed within one month period. Parties will bear their own legal expenses. -24- The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum preferred an appeal before the State Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in limine vide impugned orders dated 19th October, 2012 reading thus: Heard the learned Advocate of the appellant Sh. N.C. Jain and gone through the file thoroughly. After examining all the facts & evidence of complaint the subordinate Distt. Forum passed the order. Hence we don fine any reason to re-examine all the facts & evidence. Not even a single mistake is found in order passed on 26.6.2012 by the learned Distt. Forum, Bharatpur going through the facts & situation. Because the Distt. Forum has used right discretion on the facts brought in record, hence there is no ground for interference in it. Besides this there is no substance of appeal on the ground of merits and members. Hence orders passed by the Distt. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bharatpur on dated 26.6.2012 in complaint No.224/2008 is confirmed & appeal of appellant is rejected on merit. One month time is given to the appellant for the compliance of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sunita Ranka) (Anil Kumar Mishra) (Ashok Parihar) Member Member Chairman State Commission State Commission State Commission Consumer Protection Consumer Protection Consumer Protection Jaipur Jaipur Jaipur Shri A.P. Sinha, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders of the State Commission are not -25- sustainable for those orders are non-speaking orders and do not refer to the grounds of appeal or facts of the case. Thus it is urged that the impugned orders are perverse and liable to be set aside. Notices of revision petitions were issued to the respondents. The petitioner was directed to remit a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the respective respondents/complainants so as to enable them to meet their travel and allied expenses. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at the bar that aforesaid direction has been complied with and demand drafts have already been remitted to the respective respondents/complainants. He has also filed the compliance report. Despite that respective complainants have not turned up to contest the revision petitions. Learned Shri Rahul Kamwat, Advocate for respondent No.2 in all the cases submits that he has not much to say because the complaints were dismissed against respondent No.2 and that orders have not been challenged by the complainants. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned orders we find that the orders are cryptic. The State Commission has not bothered to refer to the facts of the case or the grounds of appeal taken by the petitioner. This, in our considered view, amounts to abdication of the function as the first appellate court. First -26- appeal in a matter is the right of the appellant and the appellate court is under obligation to re-appreciate the facts in the light of the grounds of appeal. The State Commission has not even referred to the grounds of appeals. Therefore, in our considered view, the orders passed by the State Commission are perverse. We may note that a similar issue came up before Honle Supreme Court in the matter of HVPNL vs. Mahavir (2004) 10 SCC 86 wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the validity of similar orders passed by the State Commission, Haryana observed thus: - . The State Commission of Haryana did not give any reason for dismissing the first appeal. That order was confirmed by the National Commission. Inasmuch as there was no discussion by the State Commission in the first appeal and for the reasons given by us in the order which we have passed on 21-7-2000, the orders of the National Commission and the State Commission are set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission to dispose of the case in accordance with law and in the light of the order passed by us on 21-7-2000 after giving notice to the parties. 6. The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Further Honle Apex Court in the matter of Candian 4 Ur Immigration Ser & Anr. Vs. Lakhwinder Singh Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8811/2009 decided on 21.2.2011 observed thus: bare perusal of the impugned order of the National Commission shows that no reasons have been recorded therein. It is well settled that even -27- an order of affirmance must contain reasons, even though in brief, vide Divisional Forest Officer VS. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253, vide para 19. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Commission to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned and by giving reasons. In the cases in hand, the orders of the State Commission are bereft of reasons for dismissal of appeals. In view of the above noted settled position in law, we allow the present revision petitions, impugned orders passed by the State Commission are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the State Commission to decide the matters afresh vide a reasoned order after giving due hearing to the parties. State Commission shall make an endeavour to dispose of the appeals preferably, within three months from the date of the receipt of this order. Revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. Petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 5.7.2013. -28- Copy of the order be placed in the respective files. Dasti in addition.