Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/23

Sri S.N. Das, S/o: Lingaraj Das, - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.E.O., Rayagada, and others - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 23 / 2015.                                  Date.      26   .6  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri S.N.Das,S/O: Lingaraj Das,  At/Po: Karini,  Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)            Cell No. 9437775421.                                              …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Block Education Officer, Rayagada, Dist: Rayagada.

2. The Block Education officer, Kolnara, Dist: Rayagada.

3. The  Under Secretary to Govt., Public Grievance & Pension Admdinistration, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.

4.The Accountant General, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.                .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No. 1   :- In person.

For the O.P. No.2 & 3:- Set exparte.

For the O.P. No.4:- Sri Sudhir Kumar Patra, Advocate.

JUDGEMENT

       The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non payment of arrear dues towards revised salary  inter alia   retiral benefits on superannuation  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

          On being noticed the O.P. No.1 filed written version and submitted that  Sri S.N.Das  was working as Govt. Primary School Teacher under the control of Erstwhile D.I. Schools, Rayagada  was already  retired on Dt. 31.3.2000.  The fixation of pay as per ORSP Rules, 1981, 1985, 1989, 1996 could not have been fixed  on time due to rampant  irregularities in service causing huddles for verification of services in the  S.R. Das.  The cause of non-verification of the services in Service book on time was attributed to his long unauthorized absence  and  absconding regularly from his duties.  Further the period of absence from   24.7.1968 to 9.5.1970 as EOL for 655  days was sanctioned on 28.3.2001   &  period of EOL from 23.11.1978 to 7.12.1978, 1.10.1980 to 15.6.1982 (673 days) and from 1.5.1991 to 1.8.1991 (123 days) and from 1.7.1992 to 31.7.1992 ( 31 days) and 1.10.1996 to 31`.10.1996(31 days) and 1.2.1998 to  31.8.1999 (577 days) was sanctioned on Dt. 6.8.2004. Moreover, considering the gravity of the case on humanitarian point of view, the above period of absence was treated EOL and  fixation of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1989, 1.1.1985, 1.1.1998, & 1.1.1996 at par with the ORSP Rules, was accordingly sanctioned in favour of the  complainant. The  O.P. No.1  further submitted it belongs to past, a lot of time required to stress out the related relevant records/documents including the Service Book of the complainant for settlement of the claims.  Again the O.P. No.1 prays the forum direct the complainant to submit the relevant documents concerning their service period for facilitating smooth and early settlement of his claim.

          On being noticed the O.Ps 2 & 3 neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version though availing  of more than  25  adjournments. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayed to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around three years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing from  the   complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps 2 & 3 . The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps 2 & 3 were  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.         

 

On being noticed the O.P. No. 4  filed  written version through their learned counsel   refuting the allegation levelled against  them. The O.P No.4  taking one and other grounds in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P No.4. Hence the O.P No.  4   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.P No.1 and 4   appeared and defend the case.  Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the O.P No.4   and from the O.P. No.1 inter alia  complainant.    Perused the record, documents,  written version filed by the parties. 

                This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law                                    

                                                FINDINGS.

          There is no dispute the complainant Sri S.N.Das  was working as Govt. Primary School Teacher under the control of Erstwhile D.I. Schools, Rayagada and  had already  retired on Dt. 31.3.2000. Again there is no dispute the fixation of pay as per ORSP Rules, 1981, 1985, 1989, 1996 could not have been fixed  in time.

          The O.P. No.4 in their written version para No.1  contended that direct the O.P. NO.1 & 2  to draw and pay the differential amount of his salary benefits acquired  by him during his service, to pay the differential DCRG amount consequent upon the revision of his pay  along  with monetary  compensation  for the delay caused by the O.P. No.1 not verifying  his service book  from 1977 in due time  along with his entitlement payable to him as per pay fixation from 1981, 1985,1989, 1996.

          The O.P. No.4 in their written version para No.3  contended that the complainant  had retired from Govt. service w.e.f 31.3.2000 on superannuation. The pension papers in the Ist. Instance  were submitted by  the O.P. No.1 to this office vide his letter No. 2511 Dt. 27.7.2005. The same was returned to the  O.P. No.1 vide this office Letter No. Pen-12-PR-253/05-06/257-258 Dtd. 28.9.2005 for compliance in connection  with certain irregularities as noticed,  especially (1)non sanction  of annual increments from 1.8.1979 to 1.8.1981 and from 1.12.1998 till the date of superannuation. (ii) for  want of fixation of pay requiring  fixation on 1.1.1981, 1.1.1985, 1.5.1989 and 1.1.1996 and (iii) Service verification  certificate   from 1.1.1977 till date of retirement along with other irregularities  specified  therein.

          The O.P. No1.  Re-submitted the pension papers of the complainant vide his Letter No. 1149 Dt. 16.3.2006 with part compliance to the observations made by this office Dtd.28.9.2005.  Accordingly, pension was authorised vide PPO NO. 118177  issued vide this office Lr. No. Pen-12-PR-253/05-06/SB/59/06-07/1874-1876 Dtd. 3.9.2007 taking  last pay drawn as Rs. 4,200/- as per the Last pay certificate Dt.22.5.2005 withholding DCRG for want of clarification regarding L.P.C.  and updated  Service book.

          On receipt of clarified L.P.C. dtd. 11.9.2009 and updated S.B.   the O.P. No. 4 had released the withheld DCRG  of Rs.60,900/- on the basis of last pay Rs. 4,200/- vide the O.P. No.4  letter No. Pen-12-PR-253/05-06/2098-2100  Dtd.7.12.2009.

                The O.P. No.4 in their written version para No.4  contended that as regards to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the present case before the forum.  It is submitted that in terms of Section-28 (Misc.), chapter-V of the  Central Administrative  Tribunal Act, 1985, all the service   matters are amenable to the  Jurisdiction of Administrative  Tribunal’s.

          The O.P. No.4 in their written version para No.5  contended that this forum in as much as the complainant, as a ‘Consumer’, does not fulfill the  requirements of definition  under Section -2(i)(d) and 2(i)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986, nor his claims as contained in the present complaint comes under the purview of the C.P.Act, 1986. In other words, the complainant has not  hired the services of the O.P. No.1 on payment of consideration.

          The O.P. No.4 in their written version para No.6  contended that this forum has no jurisdiction to redress the grievance as contained in the complaint case in view of catena of judgment delivered  by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha Vrts. LIC of India  (AIR 1996 SC page No. 2519), the Hon’ble  National Commission in the case of Roshan Lal Ahuja Vrs. Union of India and others 1995(2) CPR page Nol. 185 and Revision  petitions  R.P. No.961 of 1997, R.P. No.933 of 2001, R.P. No. 1115/2001, R.P. No. 1319/2001 and R.P. No.1775 of 2001 filed  by the Comptroller & Auditor General of India  and some Accountants General of different States of the country  against the Orders of State Commissions of different states, the Hon’ble State Commission of Madhya Pradesh, in the case of A.G ‘ Vrs. District consumer forum, Sherore and others (1993 CCJ page No. 601) and the Hon’ble  State Commission of Odisha in the cases Accountant General (A&E)  Odisha Vrs. G.C. Patnaik and others CDA No. 281/1993 decided on 17.9.1997, Accounts officer,O/O of the A.G (A&E) Odisha, BBSR Vrs. Tirthabasi Mohapatra & Ors. CDA 127 of 1998 decided  on 9.10.1998,  and  other Hon’ble  Odisha State commission, Cuttack’s citation where in the Hon’ble State commission observed  “The consumer  courts cannot try the cases relating to the service conditions of a Govt. employee as no  consideration is paid by such employee to the O.P. No.4. and latter is not providing any service within the meaning of C.P.Act, 1986.

          The O.P. No.4 in their written version para No.7  contended that further while dealing with the retirement claims of State Govt.  employees, the  O.P. No.4 has been rendering and discharging various services free of charges.  The complainant had not paid any service charges or any consideration amount to this O.P. Since the service provided by the office of the O.P. No.4 is not  coming within the  meaning of Section-2(i_ (o) of the  C.P.Act, 1986, the complainant’s grievances in shape of  any representation can not be included  within the definition of ‘Complainant’  under Section 2(b) (i) & 2(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          The O.P. No.4 in their written version para No.8  contended that in view  of the facts  stated above, this O.P. No.4  submits that this forum has no jurisdiction to  entertain  the consumer dispute case relating to service matter and adjudicate the same under the provision of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          This forum completely agreed with the views taken by the O.P. No. 4 (A.G.)  in their written version by  citing  apex court  decisions, inter alia this forum found   there is   no deficiency   in service on the part of the O.P No.4 in the present  case in hand.

          The O.P. No.1 (B.E.O., Rayagada) in their written version clearly mentioned  and    prays the forum direct the complainant to submit the relevant documents concerning their service period for facilitating smooth and early settlement of his claim inter alia  the complainant to submit the relevant documents concerning their service period for facilitating smooth and early settlement of his claim.

          Basing on the views  of the O.P.No.1  in their written version the complaint petition allowed in part against  O.P. No.1(B.E.O., Rayagada) and dismissed against  O.P. No.4 (A.G (A & E),BBSR) on contest.

          To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

                                                ORDER.

          In resultant the complainant petition stands allowed in part  against  O.P. No.1 (B.E.O., Rayagada) and dismissed against  O.P. No. 4 (A.G (A & E),BBSR) on contest.

          The O.P. No.1 (B.E.O., Rayagada) is directed to disburse the arrear dues towards revised salary  inter alia   retiral benefits  if any  of the complainant with in 3(three) months from the date of receipt of this order.  The  complainant is directed  to submit the relevant documents concerning their service period before the O.P. No.1  for facilitating smooth and early settlement of his claim.  There is no order as to costs.

            Serve the copies of the above order to the parties on free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.  Pronounced on this     26th.    Day of   June,  2018.

 

Member.                                                             Member.                                                             President