JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This case pertains to the Provident Fund. Although, the foras below have returned the findings against the petitioners/opposite parties-Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd., and Ansal Properties & Infrastructures Ltd., through its President-Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3, respectively, the petitioners have filed this revision petition. The complaint against Assistant Provident Commissioner and Additional Central P.F. Commissioner, Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 4 was dismissed. 2. The facts germane to this case are these. Sh. Sanjay Gupta, the complainant, joined as Assistant General Manager with both the petitioners, on 02.01.2007, at Chandigarh. He was promoted as Additional General Manager, in the month of April, 2009. This is an admitted fact that OP Nos.2 and 3 used to deduct some amount from his salary towards Employees Provident Fund Account. The complainant was also allotted Provident Fund A/c No. DL 3364/4488, at the time of his appointment. The complainant used to contribute Rs.10,890/-, per month, along with the employer, the total being Rs. 21,780/- per month. On 04.02.2012, the complainant resigned from the services of Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3/petitioners herein, which was duly accepted by the employers. It is alleged that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, did not clear the arrears of pension. The complainant had completed all the formalities. Since the needful was not done, therefore, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum for release of his pension and compensation. Opposite Parties denied the said allegations. 3. The District Forum, vide its order, dated 15.05.2013, partly allowed the complaint. It transpired that the complainant had already received his provident fund amount and was only claiming relief for compensation and litigation expenses. The OP Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation. The complaint against OP Nos. 1 and 4 was dismissed. 4. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal filed by the OP Nos. 2 and 3. 5. It is interesting to note that OP Nos. 2 and 3 did not appear before the District Forum and they were proceeded against ex-parte. Before the State Commission, the objection raised by the OP Nos. 2 and 3 that the complainant is not a consumer, was rejected. This argument was not raised before us. The State Commission, in a detailed order has discussed all these points. It is now well settled that the ensioner is a onsumer 6. The record shows that the complainant has submitted Form Nos. 19 and 10-C, to the OP Nos. 2 and 3, and even reminded them, vide legal notice dated 14.08.2012. However, it was after the elapse of nine months after his resignation, i.e., in October, 2012, that the benefits relating to the provident fund and pensioner were released to him. It is also clear that the Additional Central P.F. Commissioner-OP No.4, used to maintain his pension account. The complainant could have taken up the matter only on receipt of the claim papers from his employers, i.e., OP Nos. 2 and 3/petitioners. No written version from OP Nos.2 and 3/petitioners was filed. 7. Before us, only one argument was raised. It was stated that the Provident Fund Commissioner is liable and a private company has no liability for all these omissions and commissions. 8. We clap no value to this faint argument. The law does not make any distinction between the Government or private companies. All are governed by the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 4/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein. It is clear that the petitioners procrastinated the matter. The pension should have been paid prior to the relieving of a retiring person. The learned counsel for the petitioners could find nothing to cavil about. Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition and direct the petitioners to pay the said amount, within 45 days, from today, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 10% p.a., till its realization.