Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 21st day of September 2015.
C.C.No. 94 of 2014.
Suresh Chandra Hota, Age- 73 years son of late Udayanath Hota.
Resident of Pratapsagarpara,Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S. and Dist-
Bolangir.
.. .. .. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.G.M.,District Industries Center, Bolangir.
2.Director of Industries,Odisha, Cuttack.
3.S.B.I.Main Branch, Bolangir.
4.Chief Accounts Officer, Office of the
Principal Accountant General (A&E) Odisha,Bhubaneswar.
.. .. .. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainat- Sri R.K.Tripathy,
Adv.for O.P.1 & 2 - None.
Adv.for O.P.No.3 - Sri A.K.Sarangi.
Adv.for the O.P.No.4 - None.
Date of filing of the case – 20.12.2014
Date of order - 21.09.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
The complainant retired from Govt. service on dt. 30.04.2000 after attaining 33 years on super annuation.
2. Averred, my last basic pay at the time of retirement was Rs 8,000/-,accordingly getting my basic pension Rs 4,000/- with T.I from the beginning after retirement upto 31.12.2005.
3. Further adding on 2009, the pension of pre-2006 was revised with effect from 01.01.2006,in terms of G.O.F.D. letter No.6575-Pen-181/2008-F, Dated the 16th Feb 2009 communicated by Sr. Account Officer of the office of the A.G.( A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar from basic pension of Rs 4,000/- to basic pension Rs 6,750/- in accordance with para(2)(a) of the office Memorandum of finance deptt. Till the date, the basic pension not yet revised and the arrears due from 01.01.2006 with other revised benefits.
4. The complainant also added, SBI Main Branch, Bolangir are vested with the power and authorized to pay pension to the existing pensioners at the consolidated rate on arrear and current pension. The Sr.Accounts Officer vide letter No-PRE-1 DAG(P), Sectt. GR.DY.No.87/2013-14/10077, Dated 17.01.2014 advised me to contact the disbursing Authority (SBI, Bolangir) for payment on revised arrear pensionery benefits, but the authority not heeded to my request. Thus institute the case to give direction in revision of some at early. Relied photo copies in Annexure A to G and affidavit.
5. Pursuant to notice, the O.Ps 3 and 4 appeared and O.P.1 and O.P.2 remain silent.
6. Contention and admission of O.P.3:-The O.P.3 appeared on 12.02.2015 and filed the version in too deferred date i.e on dt.29.07.2015, admitting the complainant is retired person and getting pension from O.P.3 since superannuation and the pension of the complainant was revised from Rs 4,000/- to Rs 6,750/- with effect from dt.01.01.2006. Also Public sector Bank has the authority to revise the pension as per letter No. Pen-181/08-3667/F, dt.19.01.2009 of the Finance Deptt.
7. Contending the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and is liable to be dismissed.
Complainant is not a consumer as per requirements of Section 2(i) (d )and 2(i) (o) of the C.P.Act. There is no deficiency, petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
8. Admission and contention of O.P.4:- O.P.4 submitted that vide letter No.736 dt.16.09.2009 and office letter No-PRC-1-DAG (P) Sectt-GR.Dy No.87/2013-14/10077, dated 17.01.2014,the fact has been communicated to the complainant. So no cause of action arises against this O.P.
9. This forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under Consumer Protection Act-1986.The case is not maintainable and being devoid of merit liable to be dismissed.
10. Heard and perused the documents on record.
11. Hearing the submission and arguments, it comes to the light O.P.3 and 4, in couple raise the core question evolves maintainability under consumer protection Act. On the aforesaid context, we take to rely on the decision.
(i)Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Sanjay Gupta. Held- Pensioner is a consumer, Law does not make any distinction between Govt. and Private companies- 2013(4) CPR 22 (NC).
(ii)Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Om Prakash Verma- 2014(1)CPR 25 (Uttara Khand).
(iii)Mr.Ved Prakash Juneja. Vs Director, CGHS &Another- Held- A pensioner and beneficiary of the CGHS, would be a consumer under the provisions of theC.P.Act,1986 for the alleged deficiency in ;service by the GHS officials – 2013(3) CPR 292 (NC).
12. Besides the above noted principle, it is also settled “wherein the court has held that the Regional Provident fund commissioner under the Act and the scheme discharges statutory functions for running the scheme and running such scheme would be service hired by the employee and the employee is beneficiary within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of C.P.Act 1986 (EPF,EPS and GPF).
13. Again Govt. and statutory authorities should be made litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous vexatious, technical unjust contentions to destruct path of justice, statutory authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest.
14. Coming to the fact, the complainant has visited every veranda but either the treasury or bank has efficient to discharge the function deligently and rightfully.
14. Annexure ‘C’ – document reveals “the revised pension authority has been issued by this office for Rs 6,750/- vide PRC-11-No.236 to239 dt.28.11.2009 as per para-5, G.O.f.d.O.M.No.3667 dt191K Jan 2009 revised pension is calculated taking the corresponding revised scale of pay with qualifying service of 33 years.
15. The revision of pension/Family pension under O.R.S.P.Rule-2008 (Annex-III) existing pension as on 01.01.2006- Rs 6,750/-.
(i) Multiplied by a factor of 1.86 of existing pension .. Rs 12,556/-.
(ii) Fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension. .. Rs 2,700/-
(iii) Revised consolidated pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 .. Rs 15,256/-.
16. The aforesaid calculation of revised pension coupled with the statement of Revision of Pension under O.R.S.P.Rules 2008, found tallied and the complainant is entitled to get the same with effect from 01.01.2006 holding it as Revised consolidated Pension.
17. Again para 9.1 and 9.2 of the finance Deptt. O.M No.25452/F, dt.12.06.98, it has been stipulated- Government have been pleased to decide that where the Pension/family pension is being drawn through public sector banks at present, the concerned public sector banks are authorized to determine the amount of revised pension on the basis of the guideline issued in the aforesaid Finance deptt. O.M. Thus O.P.3 is vested with power to disburse revised pension.
In view of our discussion, made above, we have no other option but to hold that the complainant is entitled to get Rs 15,256/- as Revised consolidated Pension with effect from 01.01.2006. Hence the case is allowed on context and merit.
ORDER.
The O.P.No.3 is directed to calculate the Revise consolidated Pension of the complainant fixing at Rs 15,256/- with effect from 01.01.2006 being the date f revision and arrear accrued thereof, within 30 days of this order and make payment of the same deducting the amount already paid, failing which @ 6% interest per annum will accrue on the revisioned amount from the date of application till realization.
No order as to cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM,THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015.
