National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Savita Tiwari vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited & Anr. on 31 August, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2976 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 15/07/2015 in Appeal No. 229/2014 of the State Commission Uttaranchal) 1. SAVITA TIWARI W/O SHRI.RAJNIKANT TIWARI, R/O HOUSE NO-207-C, SHIVPURA,(SHEKHPURA), KANKHAL HARIDWAR ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LIMITED & ANR. RANIPUR HARIDWAR 2. GENERAL MANAGER, (HUMAN RESOURCES) BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD., RANIPUR HARIDWAR ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. De, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent :
Dated : 31 Aug 2016 ORDER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner/complainant was employed with Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited. By virtue of his employment with the aforesaid company, he was allotted a quarter for his residence. He voluntarily retired from the services of BHEL on 21.10.2000. The grievance of the petitioner/complainant is that despite his having vacated the accommodation allotted by BHEL, on 18.03.2006, a sum of Rs. 160059/- was wrongly deducted by her employer from the retiral benefits payable to her. The said amount having not been refunded to her, she approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
2. It was inter-alia stated in the reply that the complainant handed over possession of a quarter allotted to her on 31.10.2006 whereafter another quarter was allotted to her which she vacated on 25.01.2011. The retiral dues were paid to her after deducting the amount which was due against her over staying in the quarter.
3. The District Forum vide its order dated 10.09.2014, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- to her under several heads of her retirement benefits. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 15.07.2015, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
4. Admittedly, the complaint before the District Forum came to be filed on 02.07.2014, though the amount of Rs. 160059/- was allegedly deducted from her retiral benefits in March 2006. The cause of action if any to file the complaint arose on that date. The complaint having been filed as many as eight years after the aforesaid cause of action had arisen, was patently barred by limitation of two years prescribed in Section 24A of the Limitation Act.
5. Another reason I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission is that the accommodation having been allotted to the complainant in her capacity as an employee of BHEL, the dispute between the parties was a matter relating to the service conditions of the complainant and cannot be said to be a consumer dispute. The complainant/petitioner cannot be said to have hired or availed the services of the respondent when she occupied the residential accommodation allotted to her in her capacity as an employee of BHEL. A reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 136. The appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court joined Health Department of the Government of Haryana as a Medical Officer and took voluntary retirement. Claiming that he had not been paid of his retiral benefits and penal rent had also been deducted from his dues, he filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, Faridabad for the redressal of his grievances. The complaint, however, was dismissed on merits. Being aggrieved, he approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the complaint itself was not maintainable since he was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant thereupon approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. The said revision petition having been dismissed he approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking special leave to appeal. It was contended on behalf of the State of Haryana that service matters of a government servant cannot be dealt with by any of the forums in the hierarchy of the Consumer Protection Act. Rejecting the appeal it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a consumer forum cannot deal with the service matters of the government servants. Reference in this regard was made to the earlier decision in Board of Secondary Education Vs. Santosh Kumar Sahoo (2010) 8 SCC 353 and Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also considered its earlier decision in Bhavani (supra) and concluded as under in para 20 and 21 of the judgment.
"20. In view of the above, it is evident 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 a "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 his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.
21. In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits."
The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court leaves no scope for taking a view that an employee can be a consumer vis-à-vis his employer in matters such as the payment of retiral benefits.
6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the revision petition which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. It is made clear that dismissal of the revision petition will not come in the way of the complainant/petitioner availing such other remedy if any as may be available to her in law.
Fee of the Amicus Curiae be paid as per rules.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER