District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rayagada.
CONSUMER FORUM,RAYAGADA.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/167
Sri Rajamohanty Prasad Rao,S/O Late R. Rama Rao Patnaik, Majhi street ,PO/Dist: Rayagada.
………..Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Senior Superintendent Of POst Office Koraput,Division ,PO: Jeypore
2. Post Master general,Berhampur region ,PO Berhampur Dist Ganjam -760001
3. Deputy Director of Accounts, postal Cuttack-4-753004.
………..Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Smt Pranati Patra
2. Sri B.K Rath
3. Sri K.A Ramachandran
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Sri Rajamohanty Prasad Rao,S/O Late R. Rama Rao Patnaik, Majhi street ,PO/Dist: Rayagada.
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. 1. Senior Superintendent Of POst Office Koraput,Division ,PO: Jeypore
2. 2. Post Master general,Berhampur region ,PO Berhampur Dist Ganjam -760001
3. 3. Deputy Director of Accounts, postal Cuttack-4-753004.
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. V.Rama Mohan Rao
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
1.The grievance of the complainant is that he was an employee under the O .Ps 1 and 2 and retired from service with effect from 31.05.2008 . as per the C.C.S (Pension) Rules 1972 the complainant is entitled to :- 1. Pension is the revised scale of pay . 2. Un utilized leave in lie of leave salary and allowance. 3. Commuted value of pens on in the revised scale of pay. 4. D.C.R.G. 5. G.P.F Final withdrawal. 6. Subscription made to the G.I.S . The complainant approached the O. Ps 1 and 2 for finalization of his pension case several times but they did not respond to his grievance . So in order to get the clear version of the O .Ps 1 and 2 he has applied for the documents pertaining to his service under the Right to Information Act 2005.On such application , the O .Ps have officially informed that the provisional pension will be authorized soon after receipt of authority from the Account officer (OP 3) and the said letter was received by him on 21.08.2008 . Subsequently the complainant issued a legal notice to the O. Ps for which they have replied that the action is under process to release the provisional pension and denied the D.C.R.G, final withdrawal of G.P.F will be considered by the O .Ps . Hence he has approached this forum with the forum his Redressal and also praying to release the retrial benefits immediately with penal interest . 2. The O .Ps appeared and filed their counter with para wise comments . It is clearly stated by the O .Ps that his service w.e.f 1.12.1992 to 31.03.2004 was not regularized due to suspension . The complainant was absent from duty from 5.8.2005 to 10.08.2005 , 27.10.2005 to 28.11.2005 , 6.8.2007 to 16.8.2007 and his service were not yet regularized . The period of suspension will be decided after finalization of sub judice case NO: OJC 15655/98 and W.P © NO: 4503/2002 by the Hon’ble High Court . Commuted value of pension will be considered at the time of finalization of pension by OP NO: 3. D.C.R.G is prohibited under rule 68(1) © of CCS (Pension) rules 1972 . The final withdrawal of the G.P.F will be considered by OP NO: 3. The claim of G.I.S will be considered after disposal of the case before the Hon’ble High Court . The provisional pension w.e.f 1.06.2008 to 20.09.2008 has been paid on 6.11.2008 . Provisional pension w.e.f 1.6.2008 to 30.9.2008 has been paid on 6.11.2008 . effective steps have been taken to pay his entitled benefits . hence the O .Ps pray that there is ( Page 3 ) no deficiency of service on their part and they are taking almost care to dispose of the claim and only waiting for the orders from the Hon’ble High Court in the case and prayed to dismiss the petition . 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled. I S S U E S. 1. Is the complainant is a consumer within the definition or the C.P Act.? 2. Is the present petition maintainable in the consumer forum? 3. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of Ops 1,2 and 3 in settlement of the retirement dues and other benefits of the complainant? 4. Is there any case pending before the Hon’ble High Court relating to this dispute between the parties? 5. To what relief , if any the parties are entitled ? F I N D I N G S. ISSUE NO:1 & 2: 4. The averment of the complainant that he has served under the O.P NO: 1,2 and 3 till he attained the age of superannuation and he retired from service on 31.05.2008 is not denied by the O .Ps . The O .Ps also not denied the fact that the complainant in view of service rendered by him is entitled to the pension and other pensioners benefits . It is the settled principle of law laid down by the apex court as well as National Commission reported in C.T.J 7 (C.P) , 2008 (I) O.L.R 384 and 2008(I) C.P.R 178 (Jagadish Kumar Bajpai V. Union of India ) that :- In consideration of service rendered to the Government till the age of superannuation if right is conferred upon an employee to get pension as well as other benefit prescribed by various rules or the scheme framed by the Government , it cannot be need that it is a free service . Such employee would be a consumer as defined in sec.2(i) (d) (ii) of the C.P . Act . It is also the settled principle of law that the pension and gratuity are no longer matter of any bounty to be distributed by the Government but valuable right acquired and property in their hands any delay in settlement and disbursement thereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severally by imposition of penalty by way of interest. ( Page 4 ) It is also the settled principle of law that V.M.Padmanabhan Naik (Vrs) State of Kerala (1985) ISCC 429 , Uma Agrawal Vrs . State of U.P (1999-3 S.C.C 438) and in the case of D.S. Nakara Vrs. Union of India(1983) I S.C.C 305 has further observed. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio economic Justice to those who in the hay day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer as an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch . The retrial benefit is grounded on consideration of State’s obligation to its citizens who having rendered service during the useful span of life must not be left in penury in their old age . Hence the issue NO: 1 is answered in favour of the complainant . Regarding issue NO: 2 the main objection raised by the O .Ps 1 to 3 is that his leave for the period 5.08.05 to 8.08.2005 . 3.01.2006 to 27.10.2006 were not sanctioned but at the same time the complainant has filed the leave sanction order passed by OP NO: 1 in letter NO: BI-94 dated 21.12.2006 . Hence the plea of the O .Ps in that regard is not valid in view of clear sanction order issued by him for the above period . The other ground raised by the O.P in their counter is that for the tendency of cases before the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P © No: 4503/2002 between the O .Ps and the complainant and O.J.C 15655/1998 filed by the complainant against the O.P they are unable to finalize the matter and they are waiting for the result /out come of the said cases for finalization of the pension case. During the course of hearing the complainant produced the certificate copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in both the cases . In O.J.C 15655/19998 the Hon’ble High Court has passed the order as follows. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already retired in the maintain , we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal granting liberty to the department to initiate a fresh proceeding need not be complied with and accordingly , we set aside that part of the order of the Tribunal impugned before us granting liberty to the department to initiate a fresh proceeding against the petitioner. ( Page 5 ) The above order has been passed on the application for judicial review to the order dated 15.09.98 passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Cuttack in O.A NO: 473/1996. It is observed by the Hon’ble High Court quoting the operative position of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal stating that :- Senior Superintendent of Post Office not being the disciplinary authority was not competent to pass such orders The tribunal also on the above basis held the entire proceeding was vitiated and in the concluding paragraph of the judgment set aside the order of the punishment as well as the order passed by the appellate authority and directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service. The Hon’ble High Court while passing the final order not disturbed the above portion and as such it is deemed that the complainant is in continuous service for the above period and he is deemed to be in service for the purpose of pension and other pensioner benefits . Hence by getting such a direction from the competent authorities like Central Administrative Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court the complainant is deemed to be in the continuous service and as such he is entitled to the service benefits during the above period . The complainant ha filed the consumer disputes case on 31.10.2008 and the cases filed by him and case filed by the Hon’ble High Court on 31.12.2008 . hence the impediments placed by the O .Ps in the present petition is removed consequent upon the disposal of the above cases and a such this forum can pass a final order in this case . hence issue NO: 2 is answered in favour of the complainant . ISSUE NO: 3 The O .Ps have not seriously challenged the claim of the complainant . the O .Ps also not raised the jurisdiction of this forum . The back drop for the delay is the tendency of the W.P © 4503/2007 and O.J.C 15655/1998 before the Hon’ble High Court . While passing the final order in W.P 4503/02 the Hon’ble High Court has observed that :- The union of India is the petitioner before this court against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Cuttack Bench , ( Page 6 ) Curttack in O.A NO: 271/2001 . The opposite party had approached the Tribunal in the said O.A alleging there in that neither he had been reinstated in service nor was being paid substance allowance in pursuance of the Judgment in O.A NO: 473/1996 . The Tribunal in the impugned judgment directed the petitioner to pay the salary of the opposite party and reinstate him in service . It was also directed that only in the event the department succeeds in OJC 15655 of 1998 , they shall be free proceed against the O.P in the department proceeding in question. In view of the order passed by the Tribunal , the O.P continued in the post and has retired in the meantime . O.J.C 15655 of 1998 has been disposed of by us setting aside the order of the Tribunal granting liberty to the department to initiate the proceeding a fresh considering the fact that the petitioner has retired from service in the meantime. In view of such direction , no further order is required to be passed in this case touching the order impugned before us . Accordingly this write application is disposed of . In view of the above direction given by the Hon’ble High Court on 03.12.2008 , there is absolutely no delay in the part of the O .Ps and no deficiency can be attributed that they have released the provisional pension and taken steps to finalize the matter at an early date . The O.P has filed the counter on 17.11.2008 before disposal of the said cases before the Hon’ble High Court. Hence the submission of the O. Ps that there is no deficiency on their part is to be accepted with regard to the pension case of the complainant . However the O .Ps who have sanctioned the leave has not regularized the same by making entries in the service e-book though they have given the sanction order to the complainant . hence non entry of such an important matter in the service book is a deficiency of service . The O.P is to regularize the same in view of the sanction order issued by the O.P as mentioned above . Accordingly issue NO: 3 is answered in favour of the O.P.S. ISSUE NO: 4 The complainant produced the certified copy of the final order passed in W.P © 4503/2002 and OJC 15655/98 . hence it is deemed that there no case pending between the parties before the Hon’ble High Court and the O. Ps have to comply the orders issued by the Hon’ble High Court in finalization of the pension of the complainant . hence the issue NO: 4 is answered in favour of the complainant . ( Page 7 ) ISSUE NO: 5 In our Republic a Statutory body gives out that it will adhere to the scheme and plans given out by the Statute . This is implied in the action of every statutory authority which is required to act fairly when action of Statutory authority relating to service rendered by it is questioned , in a competent forum, it is required to account for the same to explain that there is no deficiency or deficiency if any are unavoidable . It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers conferred upon it must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers .It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must reasonably . The Act has been enacted to protect the interest of consumers in the back ground of the guide lines contained in the consumers protection guide lines. Those guide lines refer to achieving or maintaining adequate for their population as consumer and encouraging high level of ethical conduct for those engaged in the field . while dealing with these type of cases the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that under the law , the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has a wide reach and the commission has Jurisdiction to enter even in the case of service rendered by statutory and public authority .The scheme is introduced and the entire purpose behind setting of Consumer Court was to provide quick , easy an affordable justice to common people who could not otherwise enforce their rights before a court of law and it is an additional remedy provided u/s 3 of the C.P. Act . Hence the complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for in this petition and issue NO: 5 is answered accordingly . HENCE ORDERED. O R D E R The petition of the complainant is allowed on contest against the O .Ps but in the circumstance without any cost or compensation . The O .Ps 1 to 3 are directed to finalize the pension case of the complainant as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court passed on 03.12.2008 in O.J.C 15655/1998 and W.P © 4503/2002 and ensure that the complainant will get all the retrial benefits within three months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O .Ps 1,2 and 3 will be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 9% P.A on the total claim . In the circumstance there will be no order for costs or compensation for the present . ( Page 8 ) The complainant is at liberty to execute the order by invoking the provisions u/s 25 & 27 of the C.P. Act on the failure of the O .Ps to comply the above direction copy of the order be communicated to the O .Ps through Post Master , Rayagada P.O free of cost during the course of the day .
1.The grievance of the complainant is that he was an employee under the O .Ps 1 and 2 and retired from service with effect from 31.05.2008 . as per the C.C.S (Pension) Rules 1972 the complainant is entitled to :- 1. Pension is the revised scale of pay . 2. Un utilized leave in lie of leave salary and allowance. 3. Commuted value of pens on in the revised scale of pay. 4. D.C.R.G. 5. G.P.F Final withdrawal. 6. Subscription made to the G.I.S . The complainant approached the O. Ps 1 and 2 for finalization of his pension case several times but they did not respond to his grievance . So in order to get the clear version of the O .Ps 1 and 2 he has applied for the documents pertaining to his service under the Right to Information Act 2005.On such application , the O .Ps have officially informed that the provisional pension will be authorized soon after receipt of authority from the Account officer (OP 3) and the said letter was received by him on 21.08.2008 . Subsequently the complainant issued a legal notice to the O. Ps for which they have replied that the action is under process to release the provisional pension and denied the D.C.R.G, final withdrawal of G.P.F will be considered by the O .Ps . Hence he has approached this forum with the forum his Redressal and also praying to release the retrial benefits immediately with penal interest . 2. The O .Ps appeared and filed their counter with para wise comments . It is clearly stated by the O .Ps that his service w.e.f 1.12.1992 to 31.03.2004 was not regularized due to suspension . The complainant was absent from duty from 5.8.2005 to 10.08.2005 , 27.10.2005 to 28.11.2005 , 6.8.2007 to 16.8.2007 and his service were not yet regularized . The period of suspension will be decided after finalization of sub judice case NO: OJC 15655/98 and W.P © NO: 4503/2002 by the Hon’ble High Court . Commuted value of pension will be considered at the time of finalization of pension by OP NO: 3. D.C.R.G is prohibited under rule 68(1) © of CCS (Pension) rules 1972 . The final withdrawal of the G.P.F will be considered by OP NO: 3. The claim of G.I.S will be considered after disposal of the case before the Hon’ble High Court . The provisional pension w.e.f 1.06.2008 to 20.09.2008 has been paid on 6.11.2008 . Provisional pension w.e.f 1.6.2008 to 30.9.2008 has been paid on 6.11.2008 . effective steps have been taken to pay his entitled benefits . hence the O .Ps pray that there is ( Page 3 ) no deficiency of service on their part and they are taking almost care to dispose of the claim and only waiting for the orders from the Hon’ble High Court in the case and prayed to dismiss the petition . 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues have been settled. I S S U E S. 1. Is the complainant is a consumer within the definition or the C.P Act.? 2. Is the present petition maintainable in the consumer forum? 3. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of Ops 1,2 and 3 in settlement of the retirement dues and other benefits of the complainant? 4. Is there any case pending before the Hon’ble High Court relating to this dispute between the parties? 5. To what relief , if any the parties are entitled ? F I N D I N G S. ISSUE NO:1 & 2: 4. The averment of the complainant that he has served under the O.P NO: 1,2 and 3 till he attained the age of superannuation and he retired from service on 31.05.2008 is not denied by the O .Ps . The O .Ps also not denied the fact that the complainant in view of service rendered by him is entitled to the pension and other pensioners benefits . It is the settled principle of law laid down by the apex court as well as National Commission reported in C.T.J 7 (C.P) , 2008 (I) O.L.R 384 and 2008(I) C.P.R 178 (Jagadish Kumar Bajpai V. Union of India ) that :- In consideration of service rendered to the Government till the age of superannuation if right is conferred upon an employee to get pension as well as other benefit prescribed by various rules or the scheme framed by the Government , it cannot be need that it is a free service . Such employee would be a consumer as defined in sec.2(i) (d) (ii) of the C.P . Act . It is also the settled principle of law that the pension and gratuity are no longer matter of any bounty to be distributed by the Government but valuable right acquired and property in their hands any delay in settlement and disbursement thereof should be viewed seriously and dealt with severally by imposition of penalty by way of interest. ( Page 4 ) It is also the settled principle of law that V.M.Padmanabhan Naik (Vrs) State of Kerala (1985) ISCC 429 , Uma Agrawal Vrs . State of U.P (1999-3 S.C.C 438) and in the case of D.S. Nakara Vrs. Union of India(1983) I S.C.C 305 has further observed. It is a social welfare measure rendering socio economic Justice to those who in the hay day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer as an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch . The retrial benefit is grounded on consideration of State’s obligation to its citizens who having rendered service during the useful span of life must not be left in penury in their old age . Hence the issue NO: 1 is answered in favour of the complainant . Regarding issue NO: 2 the main objection raised by the O .Ps 1 to 3 is that his leave for the period 5.08.05 to 8.08.2005 . 3.01.2006 to 27.10.2006 were not sanctioned but at the same time the complainant has filed the leave sanction order passed by OP NO: 1 in letter NO: BI-94 dated 21.12.2006 . Hence the plea of the O .Ps in that regard is not valid in view of clear sanction order issued by him for the above period . The other ground raised by the O.P in their counter is that for the tendency of cases before the Hon’ble High Court vide W.P © No: 4503/2002 between the O .Ps and the complainant and O.J.C 15655/1998 filed by the complainant against the O.P they are unable to finalize the matter and they are waiting for the result /out come of the said cases for finalization of the pension case. During the course of hearing the complainant produced the certificate copy of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in both the cases . In O.J.C 15655/19998 the Hon’ble High Court has passed the order as follows. Considering the fact that the petitioner has already retired in the maintain , we are of the view that the order of the Tribunal granting liberty to the department to initiate a fresh proceeding need not be complied with and accordingly , we set aside that part of the order of the Tribunal impugned before us granting liberty to the department to initiate a fresh proceeding against the petitioner. ( Page 5 ) The above order has been passed on the application for judicial review to the order dated 15.09.98 passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Cuttack in O.A NO: 473/1996. It is observed by the Hon’ble High Court quoting the operative position of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal stating that :- Senior Superintendent of Post Office not being the disciplinary authority was not competent to pass such orders The tribunal also on the above basis held the entire proceeding was vitiated and in the concluding paragraph of the judgment set aside the order of the punishment as well as the order passed by the appellate authority and directed that the petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service. The Hon’ble High Court while passing the final order not disturbed the above portion and as such it is deemed that the complainant is in continuous service for the above period and he is deemed to be in service for the purpose of pension and other pensioner benefits . Hence by getting such a direction from the competent authorities like Central Administrative Tribunal and Hon’ble High Court the complainant is deemed to be in the continuous service and as such he is entitled to the service benefits during the above period . The complainant ha filed the consumer disputes case on 31.10.2008 and the cases filed by him and case filed by the Hon’ble High Court on 31.12.2008 . hence the impediments placed by the O .Ps in the present petition is removed consequent upon the disposal of the above cases and a such this forum can pass a final order in this case . hence issue NO: 2 is answered in favour of the complainant . ISSUE NO: 3 The O .Ps have not seriously challenged the claim of the complainant . the O .Ps also not raised the jurisdiction of this forum . The back drop for the delay is the tendency of the W.P © 4503/2007 and O.J.C 15655/1998 before the Hon’ble High Court . While passing the final order in W.P 4503/02 the Hon’ble High Court has observed that :- The union of India is the petitioner before this court against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Cuttack Bench , ( Page 6 ) Curttack in O.A NO: 271/2001 . The opposite party had approached the Tribunal in the said O.A alleging there in that neither he had been reinstated in service nor was being paid substance allowance in pursuance of the Judgment in O.A NO: 473/1996 . The Tribunal in the impugned judgment directed the petitioner to pay the salary of the opposite party and reinstate him in service . It was also directed that only in the event the department succeeds in OJC 15655 of 1998 , they shall be free proceed against the O.P in the department proceeding in question. In view of the order passed by the Tribunal , the O.P continued in the post and has retired in the meantime . O.J.C 15655 of 1998 has been disposed of by us setting aside the order of the Tribunal granting liberty to the department to initiate the proceeding a fresh considering the fact that the petitioner has retired from service in the meantime. In view of such direction , no further order is required to be passed in this case touching the order impugned before us . Accordingly this write application is disposed of . In view of the above direction given by the Hon’ble High Court on 03.12.2008 , there is absolutely no delay in the part of the O .Ps and no deficiency can be attributed that they have released the provisional pension and taken steps to finalize the matter at an early date . The O.P has filed the counter on 17.11.2008 before disposal of the said cases before the Hon’ble High Court. Hence the submission of the O. Ps that there is no deficiency on their part is to be accepted with regard to the pension case of the complainant . However the O .Ps who have sanctioned the leave has not regularized the same by making entries in the service e-book though they have given the sanction order to the complainant . hence non entry of such an important matter in the service book is a deficiency of service . The O.P is to regularize the same in view of the sanction order issued by the O.P as mentioned above . Accordingly issue NO: 3 is answered in favour of the O.P.S. ISSUE NO: 4 The complainant produced the certified copy of the final order passed in W.P © 4503/2002 and OJC 15655/98 . hence it is deemed that there no case pending between the parties before the Hon’ble High Court and the O. Ps have to comply the orders issued by the Hon’ble High Court in finalization of the pension of the complainant . hence the issue NO: 4 is answered in favour of the complainant . ( Page 7 ) ISSUE NO: 5 In our Republic a Statutory body gives out that it will adhere to the scheme and plans given out by the Statute . This is implied in the action of every statutory authority which is required to act fairly when action of Statutory authority relating to service rendered by it is questioned , in a competent forum, it is required to account for the same to explain that there is no deficiency or deficiency if any are unavoidable . It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers conferred upon it must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers .It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must reasonably . The Act has been enacted to protect the interest of consumers in the back ground of the guide lines contained in the consumers protection guide lines. Those guide lines refer to achieving or maintaining adequate for their population as consumer and encouraging high level of ethical conduct for those engaged in the field . while dealing with these type of cases the Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that under the law , the Consumer Protection Act 1986 has a wide reach and the commission has Jurisdiction to enter even in the case of service rendered by statutory and public authority .The scheme is introduced and the entire purpose behind setting of Consumer Court was to provide quick , easy an affordable justice to common people who could not otherwise enforce their rights before a court of law and it is an additional remedy provided u/s 3 of the C.P. Act . Hence the complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for in this petition and issue NO: 5 is answered accordingly . HENCE ORDERED. O R D E R The petition of the complainant is allowed on contest against the O .Ps but in the circumstance without any cost or compensation . The O .Ps 1 to 3 are directed to finalize the pension case of the complainant as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court passed on 03.12.2008 in O.J.C 15655/1998 and W.P © 4503/2002 and ensure that the complainant will get all the retrial benefits within three months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O .Ps 1,2 and 3 will be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 9% P.A on the total claim . In the circumstance there will be no order for costs or compensation for the present . ( Page 8 ) The complainant is at liberty to execute the order by invoking the provisions u/s 25 & 27 of the C.P. Act on the failure of the O .Ps to comply the above direction copy of the order be communicated to the O .Ps through Post Master , Rayagada P.O free of cost during the course of the day .
………………….
Smt Pranati Patra
………………….
Sri B.K Rath
………………….
Sri K.A Ramachandran