State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Directorate Of Pension, Up vs Dr. Dharampal Singh Verma on 13 March, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 180 / 2008
1. State of Uttarakhand through Joint Additional Director
Directorate, Accounts and Entitlement, 23, Laxmi Road
Dalanwala, Dehradun
2. Principal & Superintendent
Government Ayurvedic College, Gurukul Kangri
Haridwar, Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Appellants / Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 2
Versus
1. Dr. Dharampal Singh Verma S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o 12, Niranjani Akhara, Mayapur
Haridwar, Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Pension Director, Directorate of Pension, Uttar Pradesh
8th Floor, Indira Bhawan
Ashok Marg, Lucknow
......Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1
Sh. Ashok Dimri, Learned Counsel for the Appellants
None for Respondent No. 1
Sh. Atul Virmani, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 257 / 2008
Directorate of Pension, Uttar Pradesh
8th Floor, Indira Bhawan, Ashok Marg
Lucknow through Director of Pension Sh. H.D. Singh
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Dr. Dharampal Singh Verma S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o 12, Niranjani Akhara, Mayapur
Haridwar, Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. State of Uttarakhand through its
Joint Additional Director, Directorate, Accounts and Entitlement
23, Laxmi Road, Dalanwala
Dehradun
2
3. Principal & Superintendent
Government Ayurvedic College, Gurukul Kangri
Haridwar, Tehsil and District Haridwar
......Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 / Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 2
Sh. Atul Virmani, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
None for Respondent No. 1
Sh. Ashok Dimri, Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Dated: 13/03/2015
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
These two appeals, filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arise out of the order dated 28.04.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 375 of 2007. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to revise the pension of the complainant in terms of the impugned order and to pay the same to the complainant together with litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/-. The operative portion of the impugned order reads, ";g ifjokn ifjoknh ds okn O;; vadu 2000@& :i;s ds lkFk Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{khx.k dks vkns"k fn;k tkrk gS fd osa ifjoknh dh dkWyst çkUrh;dj.k ls iwoZ dh lsok vof/k o muds }kjk Hkfo';fuf/k esa tek dh x;h jkf"k dks e; C;kt] muds Hkfo';fuf/k ds [kkrs esa tek djus ds lkFk&lkFk ifjoknh dh çkUrh;dj.k ls iwoZ dh lsok dks mldh vgZdkjh lsok esa tksM+dj isa"ku iqujhf{kr djds foi{khx.k mldk fu/kkZj.k fu.kZ; frfFk ls ,d ekg ds vUnj djuk lqfuf"pr djsa rFkk 2000@& :i;s okn O;; dh mDr /kujkf"k dk Hkh Hkqxrku ifjoknh dks mijksDr le;kUrxZr djuk lqfuf"pr djsaA". Since both the appeals arise out of the same order passed by the 3 District Forum, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant had retired from Govt. Ayurvedic College, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar on 31.07.1998 on attaining the age of superannuation and his pension papers were sent to the opposite party No. 1. The pension order was issued by the opposite party No. 1 on 24.05.1999, in which the services of the complainant on the post of Reader were included w.e.f. 10.08.1970. It was alleged that Govt. Ayurvedic College, Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar was taken over by the State of Uttar Pradesh vide G.O. dated 10.08.1978, wherein condition was laid down for inclusion of service prior to the period of taking over and the amount deposited in C.P.F. account was to be transferred in G.P.F. account. The complainant deposited the required amount on 07.11.1998, but the pension order was issued showing that the amount has been transferred in wrong head and certain amount was deducted from the amount payable to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 17.08.2002 issued directions that for certain reasons, the matter regarding revision of pension of the complainant is pending and the matter was referred to the Director, Treasury and Finance, Govt. of Uttarakhand. The complainant sent several letters to the opposite parties for revision of his pension, but to no avail. Thereafter alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The opposite party No. 1 filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the dispute raised by the complainant under Section 6 of U.P. Public Service (Tribunal) Act, 1976; that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer; that there 4 is no consumer dispute between the parties and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 28.04.2008 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party Nos. 3 and 2 have filed First Appeal No. 180 of 2008 and whereas the opposite party No. 1 has filed First Appeal No. 257 of 2008, thereby assailing the propriety and legality of the impugned order passed by the District Forum.
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 - complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No. 2 in First Appeal No. 180 of 2008 and the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in First Appeal No. 257 of 2008 and have also perused the record. We have also gone through the written arguments dated 24.07.2014 filed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 - complainant (Paper Nos. 56 to 60 on the record of First Appeal No. 180 of 2008) as well as the case law attached therewith.
6. From the perusal of the consumer complaint, it is evident that the complainant has raised the dispute with regard to the fixation of his pension and prayed that the opposite parties be directed to revise his pension and has also prayed that the opposite parties be directed to deposit the required amount in his G.P.F. account with interest.
7. First of all, we have to see whether the dispute raised by the complainant is cognizable before the Consumer Forum or not and whether the complainant falls under the definition of "consumer", as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As is stated 5 above, specific plea in that regard was duly taken by the opposite party No. 1 in the written statement filed before the District Forum. There is no dispute that the complainant had retired on 31.07.1998 and the consumer complaint was filed by him before the District Forum on 19.12.2007 for his retiral benefits and he has raised the dispute with regard to his retiral benefits. Learned counsel for Directorate of Pension, Uttar Pradesh has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Director Health Services, Haryana and others; (2013) 10 SCC 136 = (2013) 2 UAD (SC) 574, wherein it has been held that a government servant can not approach any of the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act for any of the retiral benefits. It was further held that by no stretch of imagination, a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate Forum, for redressal of any of his grievances, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court, but certainly not a Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.
8. In view of above legal position, the consumer complaint filed by the complainant was not at all maintainable before the District Forum and the District Forum fell in error in entertaining the same and deciding it on merit by order impugned.
9. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Regional 6 Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi; 2000 (1) A.W.C. 575 (S.C.). In the said case, the dispute was raised with regard to Employees Provident Fund Scheme and it was held that the facilities provided under the said Scheme is 'service' and the employee getting benefit of the Scheme is 'consumer'. In the case in hand, the dispute is with regard to retiral benefits of the employee, who had already retired. Even otherwise, in view of the latest law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (supra), the consumer complaint filed by the complainant for payment of his retiral benefits, can not be held to be maintainable before the Consumer Forum. Thus, both the appeals are fit to be allowed and the order impugned passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, both the appeals are allowed. Order impugned dated 28.04.2008 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 375 of 2007 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
11. Let the copy of the order be kept on the record of First Appeal No. 257 of 2008.
(D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K