Orissa

Rayagada

CC/424/2015

Sri Laxmi Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

G.M Human Resourece - Opp.Party(s)

Self

19 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.424/ 2015.                                         Date.   19 . 3   . 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                                        Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                                                Member

 

Sri Lakhman Behera,  S/O: Mongulu Behera, presently working as Armed Guard, Andhra Bank, and residing at Umashankr complex, Qr. No.5.   Po/ Dist:Rayagada, State:  Odisha.                                                                                                                                   …….Complainant

Vrs.

1. The   General Manager, Human Resource Deptt., Andhra Bank Head office, Hyderabad, Andhrapradesh state.
2. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Rayagada.
3. The Branch Manager,  CPPC, State bank of India, 161/161 CSD Building, Cuttack Road, Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar- 751 005 (Odisha).
4. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Gunupur, Po:Gunupur, Dist: Rayagada.                                                                                                ..Opposite parties.

 

For the Complainant:- Self.

For the O.P No.1 :- Set exparte.

For the O.P. No.2:- Sri K.  Rabindra  Kumar, Advocate,Rayagada.

For the  O.P. No.3 & 4:- Sri S. Ganapati  Rao  & Sri V.R.M.Patnaik,Advocate.

JUDGMENT

The  present disputes emerges out of the grievance raised in the  complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against      afore   mentioned   O.Ps for  non credit of   Arrear Dearness  relief   on pension in the  S.B.account of the complainant from  1.1.2005.

 

On being noticed  the O.P No.1 neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  18 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 3 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  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P No.1. The action of the O.P No.1  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. No.1 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. 2  filed  written version through their learned counsel  and refuting the allegation levelled against  them. The O.P No..2  taking one and other pleas 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.2 . Hence the O.P No.  2   prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

 

On being noticed the O.P. No.  3 & 4  filed  Joint written version through their learned counsel  and refuting the allegation levelled against  them. The O.P No.. 3 & 4   taking one and other pleas 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. 3 & 4 . Hence the O.P No.  3 & 4    prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.Ps appeared and filed their written version.  Heard arguments from the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

The  parties advanced arguments  & vehemently opposed the complaint touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

On perusal  of the  written version filed by the O.P No. 3   it is revealed that  undisputedly  the complainant  had retired from defense service w.e.f. 31.1.2002.  As per PPO No. S/O 12314/2002/Army    Dtd.14.2.2002 he was entitled  to receive  pension w.e.f. 1.2.2002 through  S.B.I., Gunupur Branch.  Again the complainant has taken re-deployment as Armed Guard in Andhra Bank, Rayagada w.e.f. 30.6.2003 and regularly getting emoluments prescribed as per the post.

The O.P. No.3  in their written  version  clearly mentioned that  as per para -2 of G.O.I., Ministry of Personnel Public Grievance & Pension Deptt. of Pension & Pension welfare office  Memorandum  No. 45/73/97-P&PW(G) Dt. 2.7.1999 Dearness relief is payable   where the pay is fixed at the minimum of pay scale of the post of re-employment ignoring  the entire pension ( copies of the order is marked as Annexure-I).

The O.P No.3   in their written version para No.3  clearly mentioned that  the complainant was  re-fixed and not fixed in the minimum of pay of scale of the cadre in which joined. The  Andhra bank, Rayagada  branch (O.P. No.2) vide letter No. 471/3//36 Dt. 27.4.2005 had advised  to  S.B.I., Gunupur (O.P.No.4)  to stop payment of D.A. on his basis pension w.e.f. 1.1.2005 stating  the  reason that his pay had  been  re-fixed from that date. Accordingly the D.A. payment was stopped  by the  branch O.P. No.4.( copies of the order is marked as Annexure-2).

The O.P. No.3  in their written version para No.4  mentioned that the Pension  sanctioning authority, Allahabad has already clarified to the complainant  vide letter No. AT/PSB/II/CPPC/Orissa Dt. 8.1.2015 that as his  last pay has been protected on fixation of pay during  re-employment  he is not entitled  for Dearness  relief   on pension as per existing  order. We can not pay  D.R. against  the above order .( copies of the order is marked as Annexure-3).

On perusal of the  complaint petition and written version filed by the parties  this forum agreed with the views taken by the  O.P No.3    in their written version inter alia  documents  substantiated  in support of this case.   Thus,  it    becomes clear that even on merits,  the complainant is not entitled  Dearness Relief  due to the above order mentioned from Annexure –I to 3.

            Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

ORDER.

In resultant the  petition filed by the complainant stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced  on  this              19  th. day of        March, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.