IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 20009 of 2011(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. K.I.THOMAS, PALAVILA VADAKKATHIL, KALLUMTHAZHAM P.O., KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM - 691 018. 2. THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT-691 032. 3. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR - 695 121. 4. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,MAIN BRANCH, KOLLAM - 691 032. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH R4 BY ADV. SRI. P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC, SBI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.20009/2011 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DTD. 12/02/2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 21/04/2004 O.P.NO.314/2002. P4: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 3/1/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.366/2007. P6: COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD. 10/04/2008 FILED IN E.P.98/2004 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 15/06/2007 AMENDING PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE EMPLOYEES' PENSION SCHEME. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/11/2008 IN E.P.NO.98/2004 IN O.P.NO.314/2002 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION NO.16/2009 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 17(B) OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 14/03/2009. P10: COPY OF THE COUNTER VERSION TO EXT.P9 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 6/01/2011 IN RP.NO.16/2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20009 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is the petitioner in this writ petition. He is challenging the order passed by respondents 2 and 3 directing payment of pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent @ `835/- per month. 2. The 1st respondent has retired from the service of his employer on 25/2/1996. He had to approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for getting his benefits under Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, which resulted in Ext.P3 order in his favour. When benefits were not given, he had to file execution petition in which Ext.P4 order was passed. That order was finally set aside by this Court and Ext.P8 order was passed by the CDRF directing the 1st respondent to refund certain payments which were already paid to him. 3. Ext.P8 order was challenged in revision before the 3rd respondent. Ext.P9 is a copy of the revision memorandum. After considering the objections raised by the petitioner in Ext.P10 counter filed, the revision was allowed by the 3rd respondent as WPC No.20009/11 :2 : per Ext.P11 order to the extent of directing that pension be paid @ `835/- per month giving him the benefit of Clause 12(5) of the Pension Scheme, 1995 as it stood prior to its amendment in 2007. 4. In this writ petition, the main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that since Ext.P11 order was passed only subsequent to the amendment, State Commission ought to have directed payment only in terms of the amended provision. 5. In my view, this plea is only to be rejected for more than one reason. First of all, the CDRF passed its order directing payment @ `835/- in 2004. Therefore, the right of the 1st respondent to get pension at the pre amended rate crystallized long prior to the amendment to Clause 12(5). It is this order, which is now confirmed by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P11. Therefore, it is the unamended provision which is applicable in the case of the 1st respondent. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P11 in the following words:- “There is no doubt that the amendment came only in 2007 and it is also noted that if the pension was already paid before 2007 it was not subject to any revision. It is to be noted that the order of the forum below in OP No.314/2002 is dated 28.4.2004 and it was the opposite party who protracted the matter without fully complying with the order and now WPC No.20009/11 :3 : seeking refuge under Section 12(5) (ii)”. I see absolutely no reason to take a view different from what has been taken by the 3rd respondent. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp