State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager, State Bank Of India vs Sri Satiga Dhuli on 19 July, 2023
,,/
I
STATE CONSUMEN OTSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ODISHA. CUTTACK
First Appeal No.89t /2012
(From an order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forurn, Rayagacla in
Consumer Complaint No. 30612011)
1- Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,Gurlupur IJranch,
AtlP O-Gunupur,Di st-Rayagad a.
2- Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Centralized Pension Processing Centre,
1 6l I 162 C.S.D.Building, Bomikhal,
Cr"rttackRoad,Bhubancswar-6 .. App.llants
Versus-
l- Sri Satiga Dhuli,
S/o.Late Daliga Dl-ruli,
At-Gandhi Nagar, Relli Street,
I)O- Cir"rnupur,Dist- Rayagada.
2- The Tahasildar, Gunupur,
AtlPO-Gunupur,Di st- Rayagada.
3- TheSub-'freasuryOfficer,Gunupur,
AtlPO-Gunupu r,Di st- Rayagada.
Respondents
Cor-rnsel for tl-re Appellant- Sri P.V.Balkrishna.
Cor:nsel for the Rcspondents- None
PIIIISENT :- _ Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra, Mcmber.
Sri l{emant Kumar Mohanty, Momber.
&L
2
DATB OF HBARING-I2 ,0I.2023
DATE OF ORDER- 19. 07. 2023
ORDER
This appeal arises out of an impugned order dt.l8. lo.2ol2passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rayagada in Consumer Complaint No.3 06/20 ll .
2- The case of the complainant is that the complainant was working in the office of the Thhasildar, Gunupur,Dist- Rayagada from 1973 till his retirement i.e. on 31.8. 2009. His monthly pension amount was being credited in the Savings Bank Account No.1 116606339 of State Bank of Inclia.
But without any prior intimation or notice, the opposite party No.4, chief Manager, s.B.I, CPPC, Bhubaneswar intimated that Rs.50,3 l2l- has been drawn excess by the cornplainant and a sum of Rs.2,000/-
will be deductecl from the pension in every month commencing from Octobeq20l1.
For such illegal deduction, the complainant filed complaint before the learned Forum below for a direction to Opp.PartyNo.3 and 4 to stop deduction of Rs.2,000/-
per month and to refund the amount already deducted.
3- The Opposite Party No.l filed its written version stating that the complainant was an employee w.e.f 08.09. 1973 and retired on 31.0g.2008.
After his retirement his pension papers has been submitted before A'G',Odisha and he is drawing pension regularly as such the allegation of the complainant against O.p No.l is not correct.
3The Opp.Party No.2 in its written version has stated that since the complainant is at present receiving pension from the S.B.I, Gunupur, as such no other documentary proof in support of payment of less/excess payrnent made at the bank level is necessary and there is no specific allegation against the O.P No.2.
The Opp.Party No.3 and 4 filed its written version and stated that the complainant is a pension holder under O.P No.3 and used to get pension from centralised pension processing cell, Bhubaneswar (o.p No.4). The o.p No'3 communicated a letter to cornplainant on 3O.B.2O:2 alongwith the calculation sheet attached for the perusal of the complainant infbrming him that an amount of Rs.32,4141- was the excess amount paid to him which is subject to recovery of Rs.2 ,0001- per month.
4- The learned Forum below after hearing passed the impugned order directing the opposite party No.3 and, 4 to stop deduction of the amount from the pass book account No.l 1116606339 and to refund the deducted amount to the comprainant @ Rs.2,000/- per month from October,2Ol 1 to till date alongwith bank interest on the deducted amount.
Furlher, the case is dismissed on contest against opp.party No.1 and2. The compliance of the order shall be within 30 days from the date of the order.
5- Challenging the impugned order of the learned Forum below, the present appeal has been filed by the Appellants.
6- During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the 4 Appellants subrnitted that at the time of availing the pension same is credited to his S'B'Account maintained at the State Bank of India, Gunupur Branch and on such he on his own accord has handed over an executed letter of undertaking stating that if at allthere are some mistakes, this undertking is of irrevocable authorising the bank to recover the amount due by debiting/deducting from the said s.B.Account of the complainant in possession of the Bank' such an undeftaking having been given and agreed to now the complainant can not fall back from his words. This fact has been brought to the notice of the learned Forum below with documentry evidence, but the learned Forum below without taking into consideration the available materials has passed the impugned order against the Appellants which is eroneous' illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such the same is liable to be set aside.
7- counsel for the Appellants cited the decision reported in AIR 20l2sc 2951 in case of chandi Prasad uniyal and others vrs. State of uttarakhand and others. In the said decision the Hon,ble Apex court has held that:
"we are concerned with the excess payment of p,bric mo,ey which is often described as "tqx payers money,, which berongs neither to the fficers who have effected over-payment nor that of the recipients.
wefair to see why the concept offraud or misrepresentation is being brought in srch situations' Question to be asked is whether excess money has been paid or not moy be due to a bona fide ruistake. Possibly, effecting excess payment of public money by Government fficers, may be due to various reasons like negligence, carelessness, collusion, favouritism etc. because money in such sitttation does not belong to the payer or the payee. Situations may also arise vvhere both the poyer and the payee are at fault, then the mistake is mutual.
Payruents are being fficted in many situations without any authoriQ of law and payments have been received by the recipients also without any authoriQ of law. Any amount paid/received without authoriQ of law can always be recovered barring few exceptions of extreme hardships but not as a matter of right, in such situations law implies an obligation on the payee to repay the ruoney, otherwise it would amount to unjust enrichment "
8- Counsel for the Appellant cited another decision reported in AIR 2016SC 3523 in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and othcrs Vrs. Jagdev Singh. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Apex court has held that:
" The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present cese, the fficer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any paymentfound to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The fficer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.6
For these reasons, the judgment of the High court which set aside the action for recovery is unsustainable. Howeve4 we qre of the view that the recovety should be made in reasonable instalments. We direct that the recovery be made in equated monthly instalments spread over a period of two years."
9- In the case of Ministry of Water Resources and others Vrs.
Shrcepat Rao Kamde reported in Manu/SC ll842l20lg wherein the Hon'ble Apex Courl has held that:-
" fn view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a government servqnt raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or qny of his retiral benefits before any of the forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(l)(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 grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, tf eny, or the civil court but certainly not aforum under the Act.
In view of the above, we hold that the governtnent servant cannot approach any of the forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits." The aforesaid decision also noticed a line of cases decidedby this 7 Court where claints under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Frutds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in respect of employees of establishments covered under the Schedule to said Act hacl come np before this Court. Those ceses were also dealt with ancl finally the conclusion v)cts arrived at in paragraphs 20 and 2l as stated above. This Cottrt also considered the case of Santosh Kumar Sahoo, which had found that the lct ,vas not intended to cover discharge of statutory function of examining vvhether a candidate was fit to be declared as having successfttlly contpletetl a coLu'se by passing the examinetion.,, 10- Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant was a Govt.serant and filed the complaint petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opp.Parties. Opp.Parties NO.1 and 2 are government officers and O.P No'3 and 4 are Chief Manager and Branch Manager, State Bank of India. 11- we find that the o.P No.3 and 4 filed the counter on 30.06.2012 stating that the pension and other mongeuy benefits of the cornplainant as a servant under Tahasildar, Gunupur shall be fixed by the authority ancl as per the fixation, the complainant is entitled to receive as a customer under Opp.Party No.3 through his bank account. In case of such operation, the cornplainant received the excess amount instead of the total arrears of Rs.25,7261-. The excess amount which was received by the complainant is now under the subject matter of the adjustrnent towards the excess payment. 8 12- Opp.Party No.3 & 4 has also filed amendment petition on 21.09.2012 before the learned Forum below enclosing an unclerlaking c1t.31 .12.2009 executed by complainant in favour of Opp.parly No.3. The Opp.Party No.3&4 has specifically stated in the saicl petition that the O.PNo.3 has communicated the letter to the complainant on 30.08.2012 alongwitlr calculation sheet informing an amount of Rs.32,4141- was paid in excess whiih is subject to recovery of Rs.2,000/- each month. The cornplainant has also executed the underlaking on 31 .I2.2009.
r3- we find that the learned Forum below has passed the irnpugr-recl order directing the O.P No.3 and 4 to stop deduction of the amount frorn the pass book account No. 1116606339 and to refund the deducted amount to complainant @Rs.20001- per month from October, 2OlI to till date along with bank interest which is illegal and arbitrary.
14' We find that the learned Forum below without going through the counter filed by Opp.Parlies No. 3 and 4, the amendment petition dt.31 .12.2009 and the undertaking dt. 31 ,12.2009 executed by complainant, lras passed the impugned order which is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. We also find that the complainant has approached the Hon'ble High Court on self same prayer in WPC No.1752612012 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.1t.2022. We find that the O.P No.4 has sent a letter on dt.27.9.2011to complainant stating that due to wrong calculation, 9 higher T.I excess payment of Rs.50 ,3121- has been paid to the pensioner, as suclr recovery of Rs.2,000/- be made from October,2011 from the monthly pension of complainant. Challenging the said action of Opp.Parlies, the cornplainant who was a government servant has filed the cornplaint petitiol befbre the learned Forum below for redressal of his grievnces, whch is not r-naintainable before the Consumer Forum. But the learned Forurn below without considering the said fact has passed the impugned order which is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
t5- Taking into consideration the written version dt. 30.6..2012, the Amendment petition of opp.Parties No. 3 and 4 dt. 21.9.2012 and rhe trnderlaking filed by cornplainant dt. 31 .12.2009 before the Appellants ancl tl-re citations filed on behalf of counsel of Appellants, we hold that the impugned order passed by the learned Forum below is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
Hence, the irnpugned order is set aside.
Appeal is allowed.
The complaint petition has no merit and stands clismissecr. No costs.
Send back the DFR.
Statutoly amount if any be refunded oq roper identification.
-/(
(H.K5{orfanty) (D.
Mcmber Mem ber