BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.245 of 2022
Date of Instt. 26.07.2022
Date of Decision: 30.06.2023
Parveen Kumar Bhasin, Age 61 years, S/o Jagdish Bhasin, R/o 10, Sunny Prime Enclave, Jalandhar. Mob NO.9465389196.
..........Complainant
Versus
Director of Accounts Cabinet Secretariat, Room No.1001 B1 Wing 10th Floor Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Sh. B. B. Sekhri, Adv. Counsel for OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant was an employee of Special Bureau, Government of India and was due to receive his Provident Fund and CGEGIS amounts on the retirement day i.e. 30/11/2021 or maximum on the next day, as per the Government of India guidelines, which were not given attention by the staff at New Delhi, as well as at my retiring place, Jammu. Then Dealing Assistant and Section Officer (name not known) at Director of Accounts office, New Delhi kept all the Government guidelines and senior's advice buried and delayed the process of payments for not depositing through NEFT rather prepared Demand Drafts and send to Jammu office, where the below mentioned 02 officials also grounded the Government's and senior's advice and neither deposited the DDs in my SBI saving account at Jammu, neither send to his address. After one month on 31/12/2021, he was enquired telephonically from one Raj Kumar, FA who had kept the DD with him and was at home/leave, without informing the same to anyone and explained him about the keeping of Drafts, forwarded by the local cashier to the branch, where he attached. Then he requested telephonically to one of his colleagues of his rank that DDs are lying in the office, so please get these deposited in his SBI account, Jammu. His colleague then rushed back to Office from the local area duties and after collecting from the said branch on his own behalf deposited the Demand Drafts (which were issued from Director of Accounts New Delhi) in his bank account, as per bank details provided to him telephonically on that time by him. The same Drafts instead of being deposited in his saving account just 400 Meters from office building Jammu, were forwarded by the LDC-cum Cashier, Darshan at its own to the subordinate section within building at Jammu, from where his said colleague had collected the same to deposit. The same has been done by the OP, which is against the laid down Government instructions. The act conducted by the OP does not fulfill the official norms and proved guilty of lapse in service to the retired official. The OP delayed the payment by 31 days of Provident Fund and CGEGIS (insurance money accumulated by him) payment by more than 02 months. The PF payment was got credited late by one month on 31/12/2021 by making personal request to my above said colleague. Again, making a request to the same colleague for credit of CGEGIS payment, which was got deposited by him on 08/02/2022, late by 02 months and 08 days. With the act and conduct of OP, the complainant has left with no other option to file a complaint and as such, the present complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be accepted and to pay the interest @ 12% which works out to Rs.66,381/- for one month delayed payment of PF of Rs.65,13,230/-. Further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.70,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses and also to pay interest @ 12% which works out to Rs.1563/- for two months and 08 days delayed payment of CGEGIS of Rs.67,945/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint made by the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and further it is not maintainable as the same has been filed by concealing the true and material facts. It is further averred that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the present complaint because the complainant is not a consumer and the OP is working as a Pay and Accounts office for Cabinet Secretariat as well as its units including Special, Bureaus, Government of India and the complainant has retired on 30-11-2021 from Special Bureau, Jammu and the OP works as per the statutory provisions and rules. So the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the payment of Provident Fund and CGEGIS are statuto payments which are being made as per rules and these do not fall under the category of any service as well as the complainant is not a consumer of the OP. So the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present false complaint because there was no willful negligence in alleged delay of payments of retirement dues to the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to this Court with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts from this Court. The true facts are that due to COVID -19 Epidemic, there was restricted functioning of Government offices and the alleged delay if any was solely due to spread of epidemic. However, payments were made to the complainant very steady. It is pertinent to mention here that on retirement of an employee, huge paper work is involved as clearances from all departments/ places of posting during service, have to be taken in which such employee has rendered services. As such question of delay for providing the retirement benefits in shape of provident funds (GPF) as well as payment of CGEGIS does not arise at all. It is worthwhile to mentioned here that the DD No.235568 dated 26.11.2021 for sum of Rs. 65,13,230/- in favour of the complainant was ready and was dispatched. However, some discrepancy was observed in the DD which was got rectified from the Bank and revised DD No.236105 dated 15.12.2021 was ready and was dispatched on 23.12.2021 to SB Jammu from where the complainant retired and had to collect the DD. But the complainant did not turn up to collect his above said Demand Draft from the said office. Whenever complainant sent his colleague to collect the same and the DD was handed over to the said person immediately. Moreover, as per GOI, DOPT OM No. 20(3)-P&PW/92-E dated 5 August, 1994, the subscriber is not entitled to any interest, if the payment of GPF balance is made within one month of the date of retirement. In the present case, as per the extract of the bank pass book submitted by the complainant, the amount stood credited to his account on 31.12.2021. So there was no delay on part of the opposite party for making the payment of GPF amount to complainant. It is also pertinent to mention here that there were some discrepancies which were to be removed by the Special Bureau, Jammu for making payment of CGEGIS and when the Special Bureau, Jammu cleared the said discrepancies for the payment of CGEGIS to the tune of Rs.67,945/- and the said Bill was received on 11.01.2022 for an amount of Rs.67,945/- and said amount of Rs.67,945/- was released through SB Jammu on 21.01.2022, so there is not delay in making the payment on the part of the opposite party. The complainant was required to complete all the formalities and if there was alleged delay, the same has happened due to non- visiting of the complainant to the office of SB Jammu. It is further averred that the complaint of the complainant is without any cause of action. Rather the said complaint has been filed only to harass the OP. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was an employee of Special Bureau, Government of India, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the OP and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
6. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the ground that he was an employee of Special Bureau, Government of India and retired on 30.11.2021. He has sought the interest on the late payment of the GP Fund as the GP Fund was deposited in his account on 31.12.2021, which was late by one month. He has further alleged the payment of CGEGIS, which was got deposited on 08.02.2022, late by two months and 8 days. He has proved the documents vide which it is proved that the PF was got credited in his account on 31.12.2021 as Ex.C-4 and the late deposit of CGEGIS as Ex.C-5. He has relied upon the letter of the Government Ex.C-7 dated 16.01.2017 and the letter dated 31.08.2021 Ex.C-9 vide which it has been directed to the concerned authorities to make the payment of GP Fund on the day of the retirement. He has also relied upon the rules Ex.C-8, vide which the benefits of retirement i.e. GP Fund and CGEGIS and other retiral benefits are to be made on the day of the retirement and at the time of retirement. He has alleged that the payment has been deposited late and the Rule-11(4) has not been followed, so he has sought interest and compensation for harassment and mental tension.
7. The OP has submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. He has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.8472 of 2019, decided on 06.11.2019, titled as ‘Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. Vs. Shreepat Remaining arguments and order Kamde’. He has further relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2013, decided on 11.07.2013, titled as ‘Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Directed. Health Services, Haryana and others’.
8. The OP has submitted that the final DD of the retiral benefits i.e. GP fund was prepared on 15.12.2021 for amount of Rs.65,13,230/- on account of GP fund payment and which was dispatched by the Office of DSCs on 23.12.2021. No interest is payable after 30.11.2021. So, the complainant has wrongly claimed the interest. He has relied upon the General Provident Fund Rules Ex.OP-7 and submitted that the entire amount has been paid on time, therefore, no interest is payable.
9. Since the OPs have alleged that this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the same is not maintainable, therefore, before deciding the complaint on merits, it is necessary to decide as to whether the complainant is consumer or not and the complaint is maintainable or not.
Section 2(1)(d) in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
(d) “Consumer” means any person who,—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) 12 [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 12 [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person 13 [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
10. The complainant has produced on record the judgment passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai, wherein the employees have been declared to be consumers having right to benefit from the organization. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.5476 of 2013, decided on 11.07.2013, titled as ‘Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Directed. Health Services, Haryana and others’ that ‘A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d)(ii) and 2(b) Retiral benefits denied to Govt. servant-The Government servant cannot approach any of the Consumer Forum under Consumer Protection Act for any of the retiral benefits (Gratuity, GPR etc.).’. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ‘by no stretch of imagination a Government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPP 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(1)(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.’
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also relied upon the judgment titled as ‘Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat Vs. Directed. Health Services, Haryana and others’ and has held that the disputes relating to the interest on delayed payment of the retiral dues of the Government servant are not maintainable before the District Forum under provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
12. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer and accordingly, this complaint is disposed of with the liberty to the complainant to file a case before the Civil Court or any other Forum/Tribunal as per law, if so desired and the period, so consumed by the complainant in this Commission, from the date of filing complaint till disposal is to be taken into account as per limitation law, while filing a case before the Civil Court. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
30.06.2023 Member President
