Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/270/2021

Krishan Kumar AO II (retd.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

09 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/270/2021
Date of Institution	:	22.4.2021
Date of Decision	:	9.5.2023

 

Krishan Kumar AO II (retd.) 23, Navneet Nagar near police line, Ambala City.

.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Central Bank of India Zonal office Sector 17 B, Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager.
2. Central Bank of India Branch Railway road, Ambala City Haryana 134002 through its Branch Manager.
3. The principal Controller Defence Accounts (pension) Allahabad Pryagraj U.P.
4. Commander Commander Works Engineer (AF) Ambala Cantt.

.  … Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Devinder Kumar, counsel for complainant alongwith complainant in person. Dr. Deepak Jindal counsel for OPs No.1&2 alongwith Sh. Chandra Shekhar, Assistant Manager of OP No.2 bank. Complaint against OP No.3&4 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.10.2022.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

1. Briefly stated the complainant has retired from the office of OP No.3 and is drawing pension.  The allegation of the complainant is that he got his pension commuted and the commutation pension was Rs.1,75,168/- and the same was to be recovered by OP No.1 w.e.f. 1.01.2002 to 31.12.2013 @Rs.1489/- P.M. but the  OPs have made recovery of Rs.2,68,020/- instead of Rs.1,75,168/-. Thus, the OPs have made excess recovery of Rs.92,852 approximately from the pension account of the complainant.  The pension of the complainant was revised w.e.f. 2006 as Rs.8,417/- from Rs.5,371/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.2006.   The pension was further revised under 6^th pay Commission and Rs.2,41,000/- have become due.  The complainant submitted detailed calculation sheet but they did not act and arrears of pension of complainant was not paid to the complainant by the OPs. Even the complainant is also entitled for revised gratuity on account of revision of pension i.e. Rs.8,417/- to Rs.24,500/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as per existing pension rules.  The complainant approached the OPs many times to refund the excess amount but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed
2. The Opposite Parties NO.1&2 in their reply stated that the answering OPs are merely crediting the pension of the complainant in his account with its branch at Ambala city i.e. with OP No.2 on the instructions of OPs No. 3 and 4.  The complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs as they complied  with the instructions and letters of OPs No.3&4 received from time to time and not committed any negligence and carelessness.  As per PPO pension has been correctly recovered by the OP No.2  @1489/- for 15 years w.e.f. 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2017 totalling to Rs.2,68,020/- . No subsequent PPO was received to stop the recovery. It is averred that no excess recovery has been made by the answering OPs. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OPs No.3&4 in their reply stated that all the pensionary benefits were released to the complainant and as per Rule 10-A of the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981 the commuted amount of pension is restored on completion of 15 years from the date of commutation of pension. Thus there is no deficiency on their part.  
4.  However, the complainant vide his statement dated 14.10.2022 withdrawn the complaint against OPs No.3&4.
5. Replication was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. On perusal of the complaint it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that the OPs have made excess recovery from pension account  of the complainant towards  commuted value of pension, and also have not made the payment of arrears on account of revision of pension as per 6^th & 7^th  Pay Commission  and non-payment of revised gratuity.
9. We have gone through the Rule 10-A of CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981, which is reproduced here below:-

“10-A. Restoration of Commuted Pension. The commuted amount of pension shall be restored on completion of fifteen years from the date of reduction of pension on account of commutation becomes operative in accordance with rule 6:

Provided that when the commutation amount was paid on more than one occasion on account of upward revision of pension, the respective commuted amount of pension shall be restored on completion of fifteen years from the respective date(s)"

10. As per the above rule it is very clear that commuted amount of pension shall be restored on completion of 15 years from the date of reduction of pension and not after completion of 12 years as alleged by the complainant.
11. As far as the other point of revision of pension is concerned, the OPs No.3&4 have categorically mentioned that the pension of the complainant was revised in the year 2016, which had no relation with the gratuity. The complainant have failed to adduce any documentary evidence by way of any govt. rules that he was eligible for revised gratuity as per sixth or seventh pay commission, once he retired in the year 2001.  Hence no case is made  out against the OPs. The complainant has miserably failed to prove his case.    
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned

			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member   Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member