1.       This Revision Petition has a peculiar chronology of events regarding a dispute of reduced pension raised by the Complainant that was made subject matter of dispute in Consumer Complaint No. 223 of 2003 before the District Consumer Forum of Ballia, UP. The Complainant was working on the post of a Supervisor in the establishment of the National Bicycle Corporation of India Limited, Ghaziabad and he took voluntary retirement on 10.08.2001 applying for the benefits of reduced pension before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The Complainant had sought the disbursement of his pension through his bank account at Punjab National Bank branch at Fatehapur, Mandwa district Mau. The documents related to the payment of reduced pension had to be transacted through the Sub-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Varanasi, UP and the request of the Complainant was sent to the said office on 02.05.2003 clarifying that the form no. 10-D complete in all respects and free of defects was submitted by the Complainant only on 12.03.2003.

2.       Accordingly in terms of the rules under the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, the reduced pension was admissible only from 12.03.2003 and not before that.

3.       According to the Petitioners, the Complainant had to clarify the date of option for the said pension and the defect in this regard was removed, where upon the completed form was submitted as such the pension became admissible from 12.03.2003.

4.       The Complainant however claimed that he had sent the application on 10.08.2001 and hence the computation ought to have been carried out accordingly.

5.       Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Complainant sought voluntary retirement from the National Bicycle Corporation which is situate at Ghaziabad and the Complainant is a resident of Ballia but he sought his clearance from the account in District Mau, which was geographically carved out of some area of District Ballia and Azamgarh to constitute a new District. The submission is that the territorial jurisdiction was also an issue but nonetheless on account of this expanse of the offices, the paper transaction for sending the revised pension payment order had to travel this distance.

6.       Nonetheless the claim was ultimately allowed by the District Commission and the order was passed on 05.02.2005 making his pension admissible with effect from 10.08.2001. It is not in dispute that the said payments have been disbursed to the Complainant after Execution Case No. 78 of 2005 was filed.

7.       Needless to mention that the Complaint had been allowed ex-parte against the Petitioners as they had not responded against which the Petitioners filed an appeal. The Petitioners had taken a plea as per the clarification issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 26.08.2004 that a member can exercise the option and the payment would therefore be regulated in accordance with the choice expressed by the member. The commencement according to the said clarification would be from the date of filing of the claim application form under 10-D with a specific expression of the option. As noted above, the Petitioners contend that the form was incomplete even though it had been sent on 18.08.2001. The defect free application was made available only on 12.03.2003.

8.       The appeal was registered as Appeal No. 977 of 2007 before the State Commission, Lucknow but it was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 03.09.2021 which was during the covid pandemic.

9.       It is assailing the said order that the present Revision Petition was filed with a delay of 26 days on which notice was issued on 05.04.2022. An interim order was passed by this Commission staying the warrant of arrest that had been issued against the Central Provident Fund Commissioner and the realisation of fine and penalty.

10.     It appears that the delay was not condoned by any formal order and the interim order was continued from time to time. In spite of service of notice no one has appeared today even though earlier Mr. Vivek Kumar had appeared as a Learned Counsel on 20.07.2023 and 17.01.2024. However, no one appeared on 03.05.2024 nor any one has appeared when the matter has been finally heard on 30.08.2024. IA No. 2584 of 2022 has been filed to bring on record the legal heirs of the sole original Complainant late Mr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava who died during the pendency of the appeal before the State Commission on 17.07.2015. Interestingly the application states this was brought to the notice of the State Commission in the appeal by the legal heirs by moving an application but the death certificate had not been filed. An order was passed on 22.03.2018 directing the petitioner-appellant to take steps for substitution. There is nothing on record about its compliance before the State Commission. The appeal seems to have been dismissed with the name of the original Complainant on record as is evident from the certified copy of the impugned order of the State Commission dated 03.09.2021. This application has also been filed a bit casually by just naming the widow with a reference about two daughters and one son without their details. Strangely enough without this application having been allowed, the widow of the original Complainant has been straightaway made a Respondent Opposite Party and notices were issued to her that is reported by the office to have been served. One Mr. Salman advocate appeared for the heirs without vakalatnama as per order sheet dated 05.08.2022 and then Mr. Vivek Kumar appeared on 07.11.2022 and thereafter is reported by the office to have filed his vakalatnama on 03.01.2023 but neither any reply or details are on record.

11.     Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has therefore submitted that even though the question of retrieving any payments having been made pursuant to the orders of the District Commission may not arise, as the pension has already been disbursed as directed by the District Commission, but the issuance of warrants in the execution proceedings and consequential coercive actions still remains pending hence the Revision Petition deserves to be allowed.

12.     At the outset, the cause shown for the delay in the filing of the Revision Petition is condoned as sufficient cause has been shown by the Petitioner hence the Revision Petition shall have to be treated within time.

13.     Coming to the issue raised on merits the fact remains that the Complaint was allowed without the Petitioner representing themselves before the District Commission where it went ex-parte to them.

14.     Surprisingly after the appeal was filed the same was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 03.09.2022. This method of conducting the proceedings therefore cannot be appreciated that too even in respect of an issue where the original Complainant during the litigation died on 17.07.2015. Even if the contention of the Petitioner on the strength of the clarification dated 26.08.2024 issued by the EPFO is appreciated, then too it would be an academic exercise as no retrieval of the amount already paid can be made since the beneficiary is already dead. It would otherwise also not be practical or realistic to issue any such direction.

15.     However, it is noticed that under the orders dated 05.04.2022 passed by this Commission the warrant of arrest and further execution was stayed. In the wake of the aforesaid facts this Revision Petition is partly allowed, while upholding the merits of the order dated 03.09.2021 passed by the State Commission and the order dated 05.02.2005 passed by the District Commission, by providing that the order and decree of the District Commission shall not be disturbed but in so far as the issuance of warrants and further coercive steps of execution are set aside keeping in view the fact that the order of the District Commission has already been complied with and payments have been made to the Complainant. This order is being passed also keeping in view the fact that no one has appeared on behalf of the Respondent. The Revision Petition is disposed off accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed off.