Haryana

Ambala

CC/62/2019

Umesh Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Controller of Communication Accounts - Opp.Party(s)

Baikunth Nath

07 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        : 62 of 2019

                                                          Date of Institution         : 25.02.2019

                                                          Date of decision    : 07.03.2019

 

 

Umesh Mehta son of Late Shri Hari Chand Mehta resident of 19, Vikas Vihar, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.  Controller of Communication Accounts, Haryana  Telecom Circle, 107, The Mall, Ambala Cantt.

2.  State Bank of India, Model Town Branch (Code 2420) Ambala City.

3.  CAO (Pensions) Controller of Communication Accounts MH Circle, 3^rd Floor, C Wing, BSNL Administrative Complex, Juhudanada Road, Santacruz, (W), Mumbai.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu,  President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

                            

Present:       Sh.  Baikunth Nath, counsel for complainant.

 

 

 Order:        Smt, Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this compliant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. To release the amount of Rs. 3,78,301/- so as to facilitate the complainant to withdraw the same along with applicable interest.
2. To assess the arrears of difference of increased pension of pensioner from Oct.2012 to 07.06.2015.
3. To award interest payable on delayed payment and retaining the same illegally.

 

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that  the father of the complainant Late Sh. Hari Chand Mehta  s/o Late Sh. Ram Narain Mehta, retired from the department of  Telecommunication, Government of India  and was pension  holder vide account  no. TA/Pen/MHTC/BTC/HCM/445.  After the death of pensioner Sh. Hari Chand Mehta, the complainant being his son succeeded the estate of the deceased and as such he is consumer against the Ops as per Section 2(1)(b)(v) of C.P. Act.  The pensioner Hari Chand Mehta was entitled to get arrears of pension of Rs. 3,78,301/- w.e.f. Jan.2006 to Sep.2012. Apart from this, he was also entitled to get the difference of enhanced pension   from Oct. 2012 to 07.06.2015(the date on which pensioner expired). Complainant repeatedly requested the Ops for release of the amount of arrears of pension but nothing was done by them. A registered notice dated 22.11.2018 was served upon the Ops but the Ops neither  replied to the said notice nor released the amount of arrears of pension. The said act of the Ops  amounts to deficiency in renedering service. Hence the present complaint.

2.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the documents annexed along with the complaint carefully.

3.                The controversy involved in the present case is regarding non release of arrears of the pension. The principle of law has already been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & ors Vs. Director Health Service, Haryana III(2013)CPJ 22 (SC) wherein it has been held 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 retrial 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)(iii). Such Government servant is entitled to claim his retrial 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. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case referred to above, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and same is dismissed in limini with no order as to cost. However, complainant is at liberty to seek redressal for his grievance before the appropriate court of law.  A certified copy of this order be supplied to the complainant, forthwith free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced on :07.03.2019

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)    (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                        Member               President