Judgment :- S.K. NAIK, J. (1.) The dispute giving rise to this revision petition centres around the denial of pension to the petitioner/complainant under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 by the Regional Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, Orissa (referred to as RPFC hereinafter). (2.) Petitioner approached the RPFC, respondent No. 1 far grant of pension under 1995 Pension Scheme. RPFC rejected his request on holding him ineligible on the ground that he had crossed the age of 60 years prior to coming into force of the said scheme. Petitioner, thereafter, filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Cuttack. The District Consumer Forum dismissed C.D. Case No. 54 of 2001 by holding that the real dispute primarily centred around the date of birth as recorded in the official document and as claimed by the complainant. The District Forum held it to be a matter for the Civil Court and not the Consumer Forum to decide. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa who also formed the opinion that the entire claim of the complainant depended upon the determination of the exact date of birth for which the appropriate forum is Civil Court. The appeal was dismissed. (3.) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed this revision petition. Submissions : (4.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Consumer Fora have failed to consider the overwhelming evidence available on the records of RPFC as well as the evidence adduced by the complainant with regard to his age and eligibility including the letter from his employer and have hastened to the conclusion that there was a real dispute with regard to the age of the complainant. (5.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner thereafter submitted that the petitioner had filed an affidavit alongwith all the relevant documents including statutory declaration in Form Nos. 1 and 2 on the erstwhile Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 which clearly recorded his date of birth to be 9.3.1939. The respondent themselves have been taking a position that the date of birth as declared in Form No. 2 at the time of enrolment under the erstwhile Employees Pension Scheme, 1971 would be treated as final and correct. 1 and 2 on the erstwhile Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 which clearly recorded his date of birth to be 9.3.1939. The respondent themselves have been taking a position that the date of birth as declared in Form No. 2 at the time of enrolment under the erstwhile Employees Pension Scheme, 1971 would be treated as final and correct. It was admitted that the petitioner was eligible to get pensionary benefit under the new Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 on the basis of his date of birth recorded in the same Form No. 2. Referring to the reply filed by respondent No. 1 before the District Forum, the Counsel has contended that, as per their own averment, the date of birth given earlier will not be altered/changed after the introduction of 1995 scheme. They in fact admitted the eligibility of the petitioner to the grant of pension under 1995 scheme. The District Forum, failed to consider this and erroneously held that there was a dispute with regard to date of birth. (6.) Learned Counsel Shri Manchanda appearing for the respondent No. 1 has contended that in the Form 9 submitted by respondent No. 2, the age of the petitioner has been shown as 29 years as on Oct, 1961 when the petitioner was employed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner thereafter became a member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and attained the age of 60 years on 1.10.1992. He, therefore, could not become a member of the new Employees Family Pension Scheme which came into force w.e.f. 10.11.1995. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioner erroneously continued to pay the contribution under EPS, 1995 and applied for pensionary benefit in the year 1995 under the provisions of EPF, 1995. The learned Counsel has further contended that the petitioner has not furnished any information regarding his date of birth and therefore there was no justification for the Consumer Forum below to hold otherwise. Findings : (7.) We do not agree with the view expressed by the District Forum that the dispute in the present case raises any serious question of doubt with regard to the date of birth of the petitioner. The available evidence as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused by us clearly show that the petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 2 since 1961. The available evidence as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused by us clearly show that the petitioner was in the employment of respondent No. 2 since 1961. Respondent No. 2 has forwarded the statutory Forms No. I and II and declaration and nomination form as far back as in 1971 in which the date of birth of the petitioner has been recorded as 9.3.1939 at Sr. No. 83 of the employers (respondent No.2) enclosure available at (p 42) of the paper book. The declaration and nomination form at (p 53) also indicates the date of birth as 9th March, 1939, the year is reiterated in the vernacular language. This document remained with the RPFC since 1971 and no question was raised for decades about its authenticity. Besides, respondent No. 1 in their reply before the District Forum have clearly stated that they have not been able to resolve the facts recorded in Form No. 9 and Form No. 2 which do not tally with each other but have clearly stated therein that the age/date of birth as claimed by the member through Form No. 2 at the time of joining as EPF member and certified/forwarded by the employer will be valid and this will not be altered or arranged under any circumstance. (8.) We have also perused the correspondence between respondent No. 2, the employer and the respondent No. 1 available on record and also letter dated 26.2.1999 addressed by the employer to the petitioner. These documents by the employer clearly indicate that at the time of his employment during 1961 and subsequently wherever the issue has cropped up, the date of birth of the petitioner has been stated as 9.3.1939. Hence, in our view, the District Forum has completely erred in its judgment that there was a dispute with regard to the age of the petitioner. (9.) The real issue before the forum in fact was whether the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefit under the 1995 scheme. In their reply before the District Forum, respondent No. 1 has admitted and stated as under : "In the above circumstances, this office was not in a position to extend pensionary benefits to the complainant. (9.) The real issue before the forum in fact was whether the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefit under the 1995 scheme. In their reply before the District Forum, respondent No. 1 has admitted and stated as under : "In the above circumstances, this office was not in a position to extend pensionary benefits to the complainant. But as the facts recorded in Form No.9 (R) and Form No. 2 are not tallied, this office has consulted the matter with Head Office who in turn clarified the position vide Head Office letter No. Pension/3/8/Orissa/96-97/68299 dated 8.1.2002 that age/date of birth as declared by the member through Form No. 2 at the time of joining as EPF Member and certified/forwarded by the employer will be valid and this will not be altered or changed under any circumstances. It is also clarified that date of birth/age given in Form No. 2 (R) furnished after the introduction of Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 will not substitute the one already given in the earlier Form No. 2 and the age/date of birth given in the earlier Form No. 2 alone should be relied upon. The photocopy of the said letter of Head Office, New Delhi is annexed herewith as Annex. D. That as the complainant has submitted Form. No. 2 through the employer, he is now eligible to get pensionary benefits as per the letter dated 8.1.2002 and the Xerox copy of Form No. 2 is annexed as Annexure E." (emphasis supplied) (10.) This reply amounts to a clear admission by respondent No.1 that the petitioner indeed was eligible for the pensionary benefit. The District Forum ought not to have ignored this aspect. The order passed by District Forum does not discuss the reason as to why this admission by respondent No. 1 was not taken into consideration. The State Commission similarly has misled itself to believe that there in fact was a dispute relating to the age of the petitioner. (11.) As discussed above, we find that the case of the petitioner is fully established from the declaration Form 2 forwarded by the employer to respondent No. 1 and thereafter from admission of the respondent No. 1 himself and further the petitioners contribution was received by the respondents until the very last days of his completing 60 years as per the date of birth recorded in the declaration forwarded by the employer. Hence the impugned order passed by the State Commission requires to be set aside. (12.) In the result, revision petition, is allowed. The order dated 22.6.6002 passed by the District Forum as well as order dated 18.8.2006 by the State Commission are set aside. Respondent No. 1 is directed to admit the petitioner into the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 with effect from the due date and pay him arrears of pension along with interest @ 9% per annum within six weeks from the date of order. In addition/ respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation.