Delay of 29 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

          Ministry of Labour (Govt. of India), through its Secretary, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has filed the present Revision Petition.

          Briefly stated, the facts were that the son of the complainants was serving in Maharashtra Electricity Board during the period 16.8.1990 to 13.1.1994, i.e., the date when he died.  He was a member of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1971.  Thereafter, said scheme was replaced by the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 (EPS 1995 for short).  Complainants made a claim for pension being the beneficiaries, which was not entertained.  Aggrieved by this, complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,112/- with effect from 14.1.1994 to 31.12.2004 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.  Thereafter, the petitioners were directed to pay the pension as per provisions of the Act.

          Aggrieved by this, the petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission affirmed the view taken by the District Forum that the respondents would be entitled to pension under the provisions of EPS 1995 but set aside the direction regarding payment of the amount.  In its place, fresh direction has been issued to settle the dispute and fix the family pension to the beneficiaries, i.e., the complainants under EPS 1995.  For coming to this conclusion, the State Commission has discussed the provisions of the EPS 1995 as amended in the year 1999 with retrospective effect.  State Commission has also relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Viju Manohar Salve vs. Secretary – 2005(5) Bom.C.R. 360.

          Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and on going through the provisions of the Act, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  State Commission has rightly interpreted the scheme.  Counsel for the petitioner made a reference to a resolution of the Trust CBT to contend that the interpretation put by the State Commission was bound to follow resolution of CBT.  We do not agree with this contention.  A circular cannot override the provisions of the Act.  In case of conflict between the resolution of CBT and the provisions of the Act, provision of the Act will prevail.  Dismissed.