State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Sr. Divisional Manager, Lic Of India vs S, Krishna Rao on 31 March, 2017
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1OO OF 2()14
(From an order dated 09.10.2013 passed by the District Forum, Ganjam
at Berhampur in C.C. no. 23 of 2011)
1. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, Janpath,
Unit - 9, Bhubaneswar - 22 represented
through Asst. Commissioner, Employees
provident Fund Organisation, OSRTC
Building, Netaji Subash Road,
Berhampur - 1 (Ganjam)
The Asst. Commissioner,
Employees provident Fund Organization,
OSRTC Buildings, Netaji Subash Road,
Berhampur - 1,( Ganjam)
Appellants
Vrs.
1. S.Krishna Rao;
Si o S.L.Narayan,
Harihara Nagar, 2nd Lane,
Ps - Badabazar,
Po - Berhampur, Dist - Ganjam
2. The Chairman - cum - Managing Director,
OSRTC, Paribahan Bhawan,
Bhubaneswar, (Orissa)
3. The Divisional Manager,
OSRTC, Netaji Subash Road,
Berhampur - 1 (Ganjam)
4. The D.T.M. (Admn),
OSRTC, Sagarpada, Bolangir (Orissa)
r 5. The Senior Divisional Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Division Office, Khodasingi,
Berhampur (Ganjam)
Respondents
For the appellants M/s B.Nayak & Associates
For respondent nos. 5 M/ s P.R.Barik, Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.N.BISWAL, PRESIDENT,
SHRI G.P.SAHOO, MEMBER
AND
SMT.SMARITA MOIIANTY, MEMBER
DATED THE 31st MARCH, 2OL7
ORDER
SMT.SMARITA MOHANTY. MEMBER ...'-
' ,,.';l;::.
These two appeals having been preferred against the order dated ,i9:,'1,O.2013 passed by learned. District Forum, Ganjam at Berhampur in ':-li ', ':i,..
":
,C;'b. Case no.23 of 2O11, rvere heard together and are disposed of by :.
.:.' i ;
this common order.
, . .,,' Appellant in F. A. no. 62 of 2Ol4 was O.P. no. 6 and appellants in F. A. no. 1OO of 2OI4 were O.Ps. no. 1 and 2. Respondentno.l in both the appeals was complainant before the District Forum.
The brief facts of the case are that complainant was working as a Junior Clerk und.er the establishment of OSRTC. He voluntarily retired from his service on 3I.7.2OO2. During his service period he was transferred. to different quarters of OSRTC. He was a member of EPF organisation under Berhampur SRO vide no. ORl87 l3463lF and his contribution to the said organisation were regularly deducted from his obtained 3 numbers of LIC policies vide policy nos. 581051O43, 060565638 and 581057947 out of which two policies have been surrendered earlier. It was alleged that complainant was to get benefits under various heads from OSRTC and subsequently from O.Ps.
no. I,2 and 6 amounting to Rs.64,Il6l- and to revise pension and compute arrear from L8.2OO2 instead of from 26.9.2006. Complainant had represented for his above claim before the authorities several times, but no action was taken by O.Ps. except a reply from O.P. no.5 vide letter no. 2058 dated 10. I 1.2010. Finding no other way complainant had filed a complaint case before the Forum below with a prayer to direct O.Ps. no. 3, 4 and 5 to sanction and pay the legitimate dues of the complainant i.e., Rs.64,116l- along with up to date interest : - and:after receipt of the aforesaid amouEt'from th-=OSRTC the O.Ps. no.
to settle their account under full and final ers directing O.Ps. no.3, 4 and 5 to pay an ::.
, .,. ., cost of litigation in the best interest of justice. l , i, .:. Notices were served on O.Ps no.l to 6. They appeared through their respective counsels. O.P. no. I and 2 jointly filed written version and O.P. no.6 filed separate written version while O.Ps. no. 3, 4 and 5 did not file any written version and hence were set ex parte.
O.Ps. no. I and 2 contended that complainant bearing P. F. account no. OR/87 13463 had joined the establishment M/s OSRTC, Berhampur, on 1.10.1981 and left the establishment on 1.3.2000. The transferred from ORl87 13463 to his present P'F' account no' oR/1354 1262 of Regional office, Bhubaneswar on 24'2'2009' It was contended that there was no balance P.F. dues in respect of complainant's account available in the office of o'P' no'l' It was also vide no.
contended that aS per letter of Regional Office, Bhubaneswar oR/LClCDl23l2}lll7g7 dated I2.8.2OIL the date of option was changed. His old PPo no. 69g7 was cancelled and new PPO no' 11274 was generated, and after revision monthly pension was frxed for Rs.576/- per month. The same was sent to state Bank of India, Main Branch, Berhampur on 20.g.2}tl vide cheque no' 230685 datedLg.g.2ollalongwiththearrearamountofRs.15036/-forthe
-,-.=-:..-::,:r "-1 ,--.:-_^'^,SiOn fr€smts tO State Bank r pe.nod r--^- o onno rn from 1l.8.2OO2 e/Cnl l forfffixrara to 8/20l1 fnr-i-
wanted of India,Bhapur Bazar Branch, Berhampur where complainant for iO,dr4* his pension. It was contended that complainant had opted r.,edu,ged pension w.e.f. 1.8.2OO2, so it was reduced from Rs'807/- per I " i:r nronth to Rs.5761t- rpr rnnnfh l- per as per provlslon o f EPF Pension Scheme, month ar ilti!"1 i ,,i.,r:.' .. rl ,;l i;
I 1995 under para 12(71. The pension has already been revised on the '' a' , _ : ,"'ri ;"
, ,.rleiirr."t of complainant as per his option in F/ 10-D and new PPo no.
''.i;.:;. ::.,
-' ,-: . - .,.. , the complaint is
11274 was generated which cannot be changed' Hence liable to be dismissed.
o'P.no.6denyingtheallegatiogrsmadebycomplainant three contended that complainant was working in OSRTC and availed k V policies out of which two were surrendered. As per the policy no' date of 581057947 which commenced from 20.3.1993 with maturity non payment of LIC premium by the authority of OSRTC' O.P. no' 6 was no way responsible for non settlement of the said policy' Therefore the complaint petition is devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed.
After hearing the parties learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed O.P. no.l and 2 to reconsider for payment of Rs.gO7/- towards pension as fixed earlier by cancelling the revision made during the pendency of the case and pay pension at the rate of Rs.807/- in favour of complainant. He was liable to pay the amount already received from O.P. no. 1 and 2 during the pendency of the case' The O.Ps. no. 1 and 2 are at liberty to deduct the amount accrued against pension at the rate of l- if accrued during these period Bse'..5O7 and if any shortfall the same should be paid by the complainant on .,"demand by O.Ps no. 1 and,2.Itwas further directed that O'Ps' no' 3,4 . , i '','.
.!"a 5 to pay the salary and other dues to the tune of Rs.64,ll6l-
\t,
, .i ,,-1,
iegeth". with interest thereof at the rate of 6oh per annum from the . ..;,'i aate,irof filing the case i.e., 9.3.2011 till its actual payment to I ,., - i ll ,,.o.rypf"inant. O.Ps. no. 3, 4 and 5 were also directed to deposit the .lpremium under the policy no. 58IO57947 under Salary Saving Scheme and regularise the same in order to enable complainant to claim from the insurance company to settle the claim. At the same time, o'P' no'6 was directed to send a calculation sheet stating the policy to o.Ps. no' 3,4 and 5. The above order was to be complied within 3 months from the date of receiPt of the order.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order O.P. no. 6 and O.Ps. no. I and 2 f,rled separate appeals vide F.A. no. 62 of 2OI4 and F.A. no. lOO of 2O14 respectively before this Commission.
O.P. no. 6 appellant in F. A. 62 of 2OI4 filed the present appeal on the ground that complainant/respondent no. t had retired from service under VRS on 31.7.2OO2. Therefore it was the duty of respondent no.1 to see that the premiums are deducted and paid from his salary, while he was in service. In order to get the benefits under the policy he should have deposited the premium in respect of the said policy in time to LIC of India after his retirement i.e., on 31.7.2OO2, even if the policy initially commenced under the Salary Saving Scheme.
The policy remained in lapsea -nditffi- due to non-payment of premium. In the circumstances the direction given by the District Forum that the appellant should settle the claim under the policy after ' r"eceiving the premiums from the O.Ps no. 3, 4 and 5 is thoroughly misconceived and is liable to be set aside.
Similarly, O.Ps no. 1 and 2 - appellants in F.A.no. 100 of 2Ol4 fiIed the present appeal on the grounds that pension application of F/ 10 - D of respondent no. 1/complainant was received by the office of appellants on first instance on 23.11.1995. The same could not be entertained and was returned due to certain discrepancies in claim r form and want of required documents. The said application was received back without rectifying the discrepancies. Hence, it was again returned back for rectification of the discrepancies and mentioning a specific date for commencement of pension at reduced rate.
The said application was received back on 23.2.2007 but without mentioning the exact date of commencing early pension and reduced rate. Therefore, the complainant was granted reduced pension w.e.f. 26.9.2006 i.e., from the date of receipt of his pension apprication. As such, the reduced pension of respondent no. 1 was fixed for Rs.gOT l- per month w.e.f. 26.9.2006 and he had been communicated the fact of grant of reduced pension vide ppo no. 6937. Respondent no. 1 despatched the date of commencement of his pension at reduced rate and approached Hon'ble Forum, Ganjam at Berhampur for grant of pension w.e.f. r8.8.2oo2 i.e., form the day he attained the age of 50 years and became eligible to draw pens rate instead of 26.9.2006. In- consideration of his request ppo no. 6937 was canceled and a new PPo no. 11274 was issued granting him pension w.e.f. r.g.2oo2 the pension was reduced from Rs.s07/- to Rs.576 lonthlv l- per month as provisions of EPS, 199s. The arrear pension amount for the period 1.8:2,006 to August,2o11 amounting to Rs.15,036/- was also paid to ;th9i respondent no. 1 through state Bank of India, Main Branch. ''berhampur. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
We heard Mr p.R.Barik, learned counsei for the appellant in F.A.no. 62 of 2OI4 and respondent no. 5 in F. A. no. 100 of 2OI4 and r Mr B.Nayak, learned counsel for appellants in F.A.no. 100 of 2OI4 and respondent nos. 2 and 3 in F.A. no. 62 of 2OI4. Weperusedboththeappealrecord,commorrimpugnedjudgment and order as well as the LCR' onperusalofrecord,itisfoundthatrespondentno'lwhowas retired from service under working as a Junior clerk Under osRTC, VRSscheme.Afterretirementhehadappliedforreducedpension vide P.P.O. No. 6937. With regard to LIC policy' it is which was granted, payment of the premiums found that the same has lapsed due to non settled' Respondent no' 1 after his retirement. Now the same cannot be Moreover the should have paid the premiums after his retirement' to pension matter which substantial matter of respondent no'1 relates is not maintainable under the C' P' Act' 1986' '-_--_-.:
Intheinstantcase,respondentno.l/complainantwasworking aSanemployeeofosRTCwhichisasemigovernmentorganisationand guided by government service rules' Health Services' Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and others vrs. Director, Haryanaandothersreportedin(2013)lOSupremeCourtCases136,it was held that --
-(A government servant does not fall under the definition of a "constlmer" as defined under Section 2(lxdxii) of the Consumer Protection Act' Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral his service conditions and benefits strictly in accordance with purPose. The aPProPriate regulations or statutory rules framed for the Administrative Tribunal, if any, or the civil court but certainly not a Fortrm under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The government servant cannot approach any, of the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act for any of the retiral benefits"' In view of the above decision, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the Forum under the Act for any retiral benefit.
In the result, both the appeals are allowed setting aside the order dated 9.10.2013 passed bY learned District Forum, Ganjam at Berhampur in C. C. Case rlo.23 of 2011.
Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.
n
f-4
("-il:n#ohantyf ( G.P.Sahoo) (Justice R;N.Biswalf
Member President