IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15060 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE PENSION BOARD, KUNNUMPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, VAZHAPPALLI VEEDU, THEKKETHERI, PATTAZHI, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, REPRESENTING PATTAZHI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK PATTAZHI, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE CONSUMER DISPUTE DISTRICT REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 15060 OF 2009 (B) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T 1st respondent joined the service of the 2nd respondent on 15/12/74 as a probationer. He joined the contributory provident fund scheme on 01/02/75. He continued in service and retired on voluntary retirement scheme on 30/9/94. He was held to be ineligible for retirement pension, but however, the 1st respondent claimed that if probationary period is reckoned, he will have the minimum qualifying service of 20 years. This claim was made by the 1st respondent apparently on the basis of amendment to the scheme dated 7/3/2001, which was w.e.f. 1.4.98. 2. When the petitioner did not accede to the claim, the 1st respondent moved the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam, the 3rd respondent herein and the CDRF by Ext.P1 order upheld his claim, overruling the objection that the 1st respondent was not a consumer in the light of the judgment of this Court in Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board v. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and others (ILR Kerala 2003(3) 564). The petitioner filed an appeal before the State WPC 15060/09 :2 : Commission, the 4th respondent, which was rejected as per Ext.P2 dated 6/10/2008. Thereafter execution proceedings were initiated and notice was ordered by the 3rd respondent on 16/6/2009 and it is thereupon this writ petition has been filed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in WA 1889/03 and contends that the judgment relied on by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P1 has been set aside by the Division Bench. However, counsel for the 1st respondent relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani (2008(3) KLT 789) and contends that although the Division Bench has set aside the judgment as contended, still the Apex Court has held in his favour. 4. In my view, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the correctness of the rival contentions for the reason that if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the 4th respondent, the remedy available to the petitioner is to seek statutory remedies before the National Commission. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his remedies before the National Commission. In order to enable the petitioner to avail of his WPC 15060/09 :3 : remedies as above, it is directed that further proceedings in the Execution Petition filed by the 1st respondent, pursuant to Ext.P1 order passed by the 3rd respondent, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 6 weeks from today. Needless to say that if the petitioner does not succeed in getting any order from the National Commission within six weeks period, it will be open to the 3rd respondent to proceed with the execution petition that the 1st respondent has filed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp