1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 10.03.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1464 of 2012 in which order dated 03.04.2012 of Dharwad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 435 of 2011 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 10.03.2015 of the State Commission. 2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum, the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as OP) was Appellant in the said FA No. 1464 of 2012 before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Commission in the CC no.435 of 2011. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 23.10.2018. 3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that complainant was employed as tobacco processing worker in the tobacco factory which was covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act, 1952. According to the complainant, she joined the employment in the year 1990-91 and she contributed to the Provident Fund from the date she enrolled as member. She retired from the services in the month of November 2000 and thus rendered eligible service of 10 years so as to enable her to get short service pension on attaining the age of 50 years and above as provided under para 12 (1) ( c) of Employees Pension Scheme 1995. She submitted her application in Form No.10-D giving all the requirements on 04.11.2010 but the same was not considered by the OP. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 03.04.2012 partly allowed the complaint of the Complainant. Being aggrieved, the OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 10.03.2015 allowed the appeal of the OP. Therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Commission now in the present RP. 4. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 10.3.2015 of the State Commission mainly/ on following grounds: - State Commission erred in holding that Petitioner is not entitled for pension as she had resigned from the job before attaining the age of 50 years. The bare reading of para 12 (8) of the scheme gives employee an option to take pension on attaining the age of 50 years. This option is given to such employees who ceases to be an employee before the date of retirement. In this case, Petitioner who resigned from the job before the age of 50 years is entitled for pension after attaining the age of 50 years.
5. During the final hearing on 06.12..2023, the respondent was absent despite service of notice. He was also absent on previous dates i.e. 19.09.2023 The respondent was proceeded ex parte. The counsel for the Petitioner was heard. Accordingly, the case is being decided on merits on the basis of the revision petition, written submissions filed by the Petitioner and other case records. Counsel for the Petitioner argued that State Commission erred in reading the provisions of the scheme which by any stretch of imagination does not mean the conclusion arrived by the State Commission. Para 12 (7) of the scheme does not mean that those who leave the service before their age of 50, would not be entitled to the benefits of the scheme. It means it allows drawing a monthly reduced pension not earlier than 50 years of age but on attaining the age of 50 years. Para 12 (8) of the scheme contemplates two situations: Situation No.1 : If a member ceases to be in employment earlier to the date of superannuation from which pension can be withdrawn, the pension will be paid on attaining the age exceeding 50 years or Situation No.2 : The member may avail the pension on the date of exit from service which will be caused by the Commissioner by issuing a Scheme certificate indicating pensionable service, pensionable salary and amount of pension due. Therefore, under both these situations, a member is entitled to pension. Under first situation, member is entitled for pension after attaining 50 years and under second situation, a member is entitled for immediate pension as fixed by the Commissioner. Thus, State Commission was wrong in holding that Petitioner is not entitled for pension as she has not completed 10 years of service. 6. We have carefully gone through orders of the State Commission, District Forum and other relevant records. Respondent herein / OP before the District Forum has contended that the complainant / Petitioner herein is not eligible for the monthly pension as she has not served 10 years. She was already sanctioned withdrawal benefits besides the complaint was barred by limitation. The same was filed after 9 years of receiving withdrawal benefit. The State Commission has appropriately addressed various contentions of the parties with respect to the completion of service of 10 years. The State Commission after considering the facts of the case and the provisions of the scheme has concluded that complainant did complete the service of 10 years and is eligible for short service pension provided she fulfills all other conditions under the scheme. However, the State Commission concluded that by composite reading of paragraph 12 (7) and 12 (8) of the scheme, it is seen that employee can avail short service pension earlier to attaining 58 years but not earlier to 50 years. Thus, in the instant case, the complainant was not justified seeking grant of pension on attaining age of 50 years, though she has resigned from the job earlier to age of 50 years. The State Commission further states “thus it is seen that as on the date of exit from the service, she had not attained the age of 50 years and she submitted 10-D form along with relevant documents for which pension is not acceptable. Thus though complainant had completed 10 years of pensionable service as on the date of resignation, she had not completed the age of 50 years and she is not entitled for reduced pension . In the circumstances, the impugned order ordering for grant of short service pension is not proper and same is liable to be set aside. 7. The Petitioner on the other hand contended that State Commission erred in reading the provisions of the scheme. The Petitioner contended that para 12 (7) of the scheme does not mean that those who leave the service before the age of 50 years would not be entitled to the benefit of the scheme. It allows drawing monthly reduced pension not earlier than 50 years of age but on attaining age of 50 years. According to the Petitioner, in accordance with para 12 (8) of the scheme, in both the situations, the Member is entitled to pension. Under first situation, the Member is entitled for pension after 58 years and under second situation, the Member is entitled for immediate pension as fixed by the Commissioner. 8. Para 12 ( 7) and Para 12 (8) of the scheme as quoted in the order of the State Commission is reproduced below : Para 12 (7) : “A member if he so desires, may be allowed to draw a monthly reduced pension from a date earlier than 58 years of age, but not later than 50 years of age. In such cases, the amount of pension shall be reduced at the rate of (three percent for every year, the age falls short of 58 years) Para 12 (8) “If a member ceases to be employment earlier to the date of superannuation from which the pension can be drawn, the member may at his option, either be paid pension as admissible under the scheme on attaining the age exceeding 50 years or she may be issued a scheme certificate by the Commissioner, indicating the pensionable service, pensionable salary and amount of pension due as on the date of exit from the service.” 9. The District Forum also considered at length the case of the Petitioner herein in the light of various provisions of the scheme. Extract of relevant order of the District Forum is reproduced below : 9) Coming to the case on merit the contention of the complainant is that, she exit from the employment in premature. At that time she has not attained pensionable age of 50 years. Though she had obtained scheme certificate, she did not employed elsewhere after left the establishment of her first employment. Hence her livelihood had become very hard. On attaining age of 50 years she had submitted form. 10D claiming reduced pension in accordance with the law. Since the employment of the complainant was a seasonal one she used to render service whenever there was employment only. Hence she had rendered service lesser than the days she ought to have work during the period of employment commencing from 1990 to 1991 to 2000 to 2001 amounting to 1869 days with NIL NCP Under those circumstances and also as per the explanation under para.9 (a) (b) of the scheme she is eligible for the pension. 10) On the other hand the very contention of the respondent is that, immediately after she resigned from the service she has opted for withdrawal benefits and the same was settled. Hence, she is not eligible for pension as claimed by the complainant. Added to it, since she has not completed minimum service of 10 years, she is not eligible for pension as prescribed under the scheme. In this regard the complainant invited the attention of this Fora with regard to the provisio under para.9 (b) explanation for the purpose of this sub paragraph total past service for less than 6 months shall be ignored and total past service for 6 months and above shall be rounded to a year and argued as admitted by the respondent she has rendered 9 years 7 months. Under those circumstances the 7 months is near to the 12 months and it should be rounded off to the 10 years. 11) Further the complainant in continuation to the contention of her and in reply to the contention of the respondent the learned counsel appearing for the complainant further argued and draw the attention of this Fora to the provisio para. 17(2) -Members referred to in sub para.2 of para.7 shall have the option to join the scheme by returning the amount of withdrawal amount benefits received, if any, together with interest @8.5% p.a. from the date of payment of such withdrawal benefit and date of exercise of the option, to receive, monthly pension as per the provision of this scheme. When the provision, is very specific, the contention of the respondent that the complainant had received withdrawal benefits so she is not eligible for pension at this juncture cannot be accepted and for the reason, the complainant advocate at the time of argument submit the willingness of the complainant to return the withdrawal benefits as per the above provisio and to exercise of the option to receive monthly pension as per the provisions of the scheme. Under those circumstances if this Fora directs the respondent to receive the withdrawal benefit in accordance with the provisio and to made over for pension scheme and to sanction the pension at reduced pension in accordance with the provisio will not affects the right of the respondent. 12) By sum upping the pleadings, evidence and documents submitted and relied by both the parties it is evident that the complainant had reports the receipt of the withdrawal benefits, the denial of pension by the respondent on the application of the complainant in form10D does not amounts to deficiency in service as contended by the complainant. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. However, in view of the above discussions if the respondent is ordered to sanction the reduced pension in accordance with the provisio, the complainant is not entitled for separate compensation. In view of above discussions and findings we have arrived and held point 1 in positive and point 2 in positive but accordingly.” 10. After carefully considering various provisions of the scheme, in particular, para 12 (7) and 12 (8) and 17 (2), we are of the view that in accordance with para 12 (8), if a Member ceases to be in employment earlier to the date of superannuation from which the pension can be drawn and considering that under para 12 (7), a Member may be allowed to draw monthly reduced pension from the date earlier than 58 years of age but not earlier than 50 years of age, the pension can be paid on attaining age of 50 years. Hence, we are in agreement with the contention of the Petitioner herein and hold that District Forum was justified in ordering sanction of the reduced pension to the complainant / Petitioner herein from the date of completion of 50 years in accordance with the proviso by receiving withdrawal benefit in accordance with the provision of para 17 (2). The State Commission went wrong in reversing the well-reasoned order of the District Forum. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the State Commission and restore the order of the District Forum. Accordingly, Revision Petition is allowed. 11. The Respondent herein will implement the order of the District Forum within 30 days from the date of this order. 12. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off. | 
