1. This is a Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner Qazi Muhammad Ateeq, who is the Complainant, whose Appeal before the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was dismissed by the Order dated 06.05.2022 on the ground that the Petitioner is not a Consumer. The Petitioner filed the Appeal against the Order of Gorakhpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which, by its Order dated 26.02.2022, had dismissed the Complaint on similar grounds. The District Commission had noted the case laws filed by both the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties (Respondents in Revision Petition). The Respondents / Opposite Parties are the Union Bank of India, which is a public sector Bank.
2. The basic issue in this matter is whether the Petitioner / Complainant is a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is a fact that the Petitioner was working in Union Bank of India and for which the Bank after his being retired compulsorily on 16.05.2011 made payment of his pensionary benefit to the tune of Rs. 15,40,000/- on 10.09.2014. The Petitioner is demanding interest to be paid on the pensionary benefit for the period May, 2011 to September, 2014. It is contended by the Petitioner that the pension should have been started from June, 2011, instead of September, 2014. The Opposite Parties have submitted that the Petitioner is not a Consumer as such matters like pension, gratuity etc. are not subject matter of the Consumer Commission and that there is no contribution towards such benefits, which are provided to an employee and therefore, the question of being a Consumer does not arise. The case law cited by them is Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 136, wherein it has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the disputes relating to Government service / service matters are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act (for short, Act) and Government servants are not covered by the definition of Consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.
3. On the other hand, the Petitioner / Complainant had cited the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, 2000 (1) SCC 98. It will be also  significant to make note of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6447/2001, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Bhavani, (2008) 7 SCC 111, wherein it was held that “In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), in as much as, by becoming a member of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme”. In this Order, the touch stone for deciding if somebody is a Consumer is whether any consideration has been paid by such person and if the same has been paid then he shall be considered as a Consumer.
4. The matter has also been discussed in the Order of this Commission in State Bank of Mysore vs. S. K. Vidya & Anr., R.P. No. 2798 of 2011, decided on 27.08.2012, wherein the issue of maintainability of a Complaint in respect of Pension Schemes and Employee Provident Fund Schemes for family pension have been discussed and it was held that “The features of the pension scheme in question clearly indicate that there is element of contribution by the employee and hence any action of the administering authority, be it a separately designated authority or the employer itself, can be challenged with reference to the criteria of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice since the contribution by the employee would constitute the requisite consideration and the same makes disputes pertaining to the operation of such a scheme as maintainable before the consumer fora.
5. On perusal of both Orders of the District Commission and the State Commission, while dismissing the Complaint by holding the Complainant to be not a Consumer, has not given a finding or even considered at all whether the Complainant had contributed in some manner or the other towards the pensionary benefit / provident fund. Considering that the pensionary benefits have been provided only w.e.f. 10.09.2014, when the Petitioner was compulsorily retired on 16.05.2011, the period between these two dates have to be considered for the purpose of calculation of the correct amount payable by the Bank to the Complainant. It is obvious that an employee has to get the pensionary benefit on the date of his retirement. It is a fact that such benefit was not provided to the employee on this date. There is no reason for such delay on the part of the Respondents in providing the same and no argument to support such delay has been made in the written statement filed by the Respondents / Opposite Parties to the Complaint in the District Commission. To this extent, in my considered opinion, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents / Opposite Parties.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. vs. Shreepat Rao Kamde, Civil Appeal No. 8472 of 2019, decided on 06.11.2019, cited the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 136, which held as under:

“20.     In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a government servant raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF 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 of his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or the civil court but certainly not a forum under the Act.

21.       In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits.”

7. Further, in the case of Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally concluded that in keeping with the principles laid down in the case of Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. (supra), the complaint filed was not maintainable before the District Forum under the provisions of the Act.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. (supra), decided on 11.07.2013, cited its Order in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Bhavani, AIR 2008 SC 2957, decided on 22.04.2008, wherein an employee, being a Member of Employees’ Provident Fund and Family Pension Scheme, 1971, was held to be a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii). In this Order, it was held as under:

“In our view, the respondent comes squarely within the definition of 'consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii), inasmuch as, by becoming a member of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, and contributing to the same, she was availing of the services rendered by the appellant for implementation of the Scheme. The same is the case in the other appeals as well.”

9.   In my considered view, the application of the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ministry of Water Resources & Ors. (supra) may not be appropriate in this case, whereas the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra) is applicable and therefore, I hold the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant has a right to get redressal in this Commission for deficiency on the part of the Bank, who have denied him the pensionary benefit for a certain period and therefore, are liable to pay the interest on the amount which the Bank had paid belatedly.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is partly allowed by directing the Respondents to calculate the pensionary benefits effective from 16.05.2011 and for the delay in making the payment till 10.09.2014 when the pensionary benefit was paid, appropriate interest @ 9% per annum on such amount due shall be paid within eight weeks of this Order, failing which, the rate of interest shall stand at 12% per annum for the same period.