DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.385/2008
Sh. Vijay Prakash Gupta
B-2/37, Safdarjung Enclave
Delhi-110029 ….Complainant
Versus
Delhi Development Authority
(through Commissioner, Land Disposal)
Vikas Sadan, INA Colony,
New Delhi-110023 …. Opposite party
Date of Institution : 18.06.08 Date of Order : 03.12.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
The case of the Complainant, in short, is that he had got himself registered in the Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 of the OP for allotment of a plot by depositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- as registration money vide registration receipt No.5/245 dated 03.04.1981 vide application No.20057, priority No.18199 but for years no plot was allotted to him. Since he had retired from the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India on 09.02.1989 and absorbed on the same date in BHEL (Govt. of India Enterprise) and thereafter again joined Maruti Udyog Ltd. which was a PSU under the Ministry of industry on 31.12.1983 (sic) and served there till 30.04.02, he got his name transferred to RPS 2004 scheme which provided priority allotments against quota reserved for retired or retiring public servants. Vide his letter dated 12.02.07 he erroneously informed the OP that the status of Maruti Udyog Ltd. from Public Ltd. Company to Private Ltd. Company had got changed near about in the year 1996. He wrote a letter dated 09.03.06 to the OP requesting it to provide the status of his application No.20057 and priority No.18199 under MIG Rohini Residential Scheme and vide letter dated 29.05.06 the OP informed him that he would get the allotment in the near future as priority nos. upto 9292 had been conveyed till date. Vide his letter dated 20.10.06, the Complainant again wrote to the OP informing the OP that the Complainant had already applied under the RPS scheme for priority allotment against quota reserved for retired public servants vide application No.2113 dated 23.09.04 and further making a request to provide the status of the said application if he had been covered under the said scheme. In reply to the said letter, the OP vide letter dated 01.12.06, informed him that only those persons who are retired from Govt. service were entitled to apply under RPS category and as the Complainant had retired from Maruti Udyog Ltd. which is a Private Ltd. Company and hence his name did not appear in the list of RPS, 2004. The paras No.10 & 11 of the complaint read as under:
“10. That consequently the complainant wrote to Opposite Party vide letter dated 12.02.2007 (Annexure A8) explaining his position in this matter that complainant had been retired from Ministry of Industry Govt. of India (In the deptt. of Customs) on 9th February, 1980 and absorbed on the same day in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (A Govt. of India Enterprises). Again on 31st December, 2003 the complainant joined Maruti Udyog Ltd. which was a PSU under Ministry of Finance and remained in service till 30th April, 2002. The status of Maruti Udyog Ltd. from PSU to Public Ltd. Company got changed near about in the year 1996. But unfortunately the complainant remained under an impression that the Maruti Udyog Ltd. was a PSU. Therefore same vide letter the complainant made humble request to Opposite Party to reconsider his application No.2113 dated 23.09.2004 for covering himself in the RPS Category 2004. The complainant submitted various documents in support of his version with his request letter dated 12.02.2007 (Annexure A8). The complainant had also requested the Opposite Party to consider his representations on medical grounds also. In fact, Opposite Party has not yet commenced allotment of plots under RPS 2004 as evident from Press Advertisement of dated 08.03.2007 (Annexure A9).
11. That the Opposite Party replied the letter of the complainant dated 12.02.2007 vide their letter dated 07.03.2007 (Annexure A10) in a clear disregard to settled position of law intimating to complainant that his request for conversion into RPS Quota could not be entertained then and asked him to apply for afresh in the RPS scheme whenever be announced in future.”
According to him, the decision of the OP in not considering his representation vide letter dated 12.02.07 is a gross abuse of the discretionary powers and certainly amounts to deficiency in service as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the Complainant has filed this complaint for issuing directions to the OP to cover the Complainant under RPS category 2004 by taking him in priority list already prepared by the OP under the RPS Scheme 2004 and to allot him a plot as per the said priority over and above the general applicants and also to pay suitable compensation to him for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations.
In the written statement, OP has inter-alia stated as under:-
“….The allotment in favour of the petitioner under the scheme in which he applied, never matured nor was the eligible to be considered on priority under the RPS as he failed to make the necessary applications at the appropriate point of time.
…. It is further submitted that the scheme for retired public servant as advertised applied to public servants i.e. those who had retired from the Govt. Services from the date of their making application and thus seeking benefits under the scheme. M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. did not qualified to be an establishment within the meaning of scheme, as it was only a company, thus the question of declaring the complainant as successful applicant does not arise.
…. It is submitted that the complainant had failed to respond to the scheme as advertised in 2004 relating to retired persons and therefore he is referring to retirement from Ministry of Finance before joining M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. could not be considered from retrospective effect to give him benefit under the 2004 scheme. The complainant was therefore rightly informed that his application seeking priority under RPS Scheme shall be examined against future schemes when announced.
…. It is submitted that the complainant had failed to respond to the scheme as advertised in 2004 relating to retired persons and his referring to retirement from Ministry of Finance before joining M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. could not be considered from retrospective effect to give him benefit under the 2004 scheme.”
It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder the Complainant has stated as under:-
“It is reaffirmed that complainant though not qualified to be Govt. Servant as retired from Maruti Udyog Ltd. However, still he was eligible to be considered by the OP as qualified since he was retired from Ministry of finance Govt. of India. Therefore there was no reason to cover the complainant under RPS category by the OP.”
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. S.S. Gill, Director has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been field on behalf of the parties.
None has been appearing on behalf of the parties since 25.10.13. Therefore, we proceed to decide the matter.
It is proved on the record that at the time of applying for allotment of a plot in the RPS Scheme 2004 the Complainant had already retired from Maruti Udyog Ltd. which at that time was a Private Ltd. Company. Therefore, the Complainant was not a retired public servant at the relevant time. Therefore, the allotment of a plot to him under the said category was not the duty of the OP nor can this Forum issue any such direction to the OP to include the name of the Complainant under the RPS Scheme 2004 on priority basis and to allot a plot on priority basis over and above the general applicants. Therefore, we hold that no deficiency in service is proved on the part of OP.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 03.12.2016.
