NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1977/2013

EKNATH - Complainant(s)

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. P.V. DAWARE

14 Feb 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1977 OF 2013
 
(Against the Order dated 22/04/2013 in Appeal No. 13/2010 of the State Commission Maharastra)
WITH
IA/5501/2013
1. EKNATH
S/O BHIKAJI KHARAT, R/O BLOCK NO-6, GIRIRAJ HOSUING SOCIETY , NARIMAN NAGAR, RAIWALY STATION ROAD,
JALNA
MAHARASTRA
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA
ECIL BRANCH (2714) EXIL POST CHERLAPALLY,
HYDERABAD - 500 062
A.P
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. P. V. Daware, Advocate
For the Respondent :

Dated : 14 Feb 2014
ORDER

 

 

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL)

1.      Learned counsel for the petitioner present.  Arguments heard.

 

2.      The petitioner has admitted that the petitioner is a government servant.  This matter pertains to Provident Fund.   Appeal by Special Leave was granted in case of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana on 11.7.2013 in civil appeal No. 11381 of 2012 from the judgment and order dated 26.11.209 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.  The Supreme Court in civil appeal No. 5476 of 2013 was pleased to hold:

“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(i)(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.”

3.      In view of this authority, we have no jurisdiction to decide the case of pension.   This Commission cannot arrogate to itself the powers which it does not enjoy.

4.      The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.  However, the liberty is given to the petitioner to get the redressal of his grievances before any appropriate forum or civil court or High Court.  The petitioner can take help from Laxmi Engineering Works vs.P.S.G. Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC 583 so far as the question of limitation is concerned.        

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.