O R D E R

(Pronounced on 24 day of April, 2014)

D.K. JAIN, J. PRESIDENT

This Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been preferred by the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunication, New Delhi and the Superintendent of Post Offices, inter alia, directing the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant, a sum of `10,000/- withheld by them along with a sum of `70,000/- towards interest, etc.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the material facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition are that while working as Assistant Cashier, `15,000/- was to be sent to another sub post office. For the said lapse a penalty of `10,000/- was imposed on him vide order dated 15.02.1990. The said amount was recovered from him on 04.11.1992. However, the said order was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, by order dated 07.06.1996. Although the said order was accepted by the Petitioners, yet the said amount of `10,000/- recovered from him on 04.11.1992, by virtue order dated 15.02.1990, was not refunded. The Complainant superannuated on 31.01.2006. Even at the time of settlement of his dues on retirement, the aforesaid amount was not refunded to him. Having failed in all his attempts to get back the said amount, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners, the Complainant filed the aforesaid Complaint.

3. The Petitioners resisted the Complaint on the ground that : (`10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony and `2,000/- as litigation expenses. The Petitioners’ appeal having been dismissed, they are before us in this Revision Petition.

4. The main ground on which the orders of the . (2013) 10 SCC 136, holding that a government servant cannot raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his

5. Before considering the afore-noted issue, it would be necessary to dispose of the application filed by the Petitioners for

“3. That the Divisional Office The copy of the said letter was also sent to Addl. Central Govt. Counsel at

4. That as per information given by the then counsel, after vetting of affidavit in support of application for recalling the order dated To avoid any adverse situation, the revisionists complied with the order and submitted a `82,000/- in DCF, Thereafter, `8,200/- which was also deposited by the revisionists through The amount has not till date, been released in

5. That simultaneously, the deponent was approaching the then counsel at The counsel was written on 26.09.2013 and 15.10.2013 but no response was ever given by him. However, in spite of several efforts, the outcome of said recall application is not known nor

6. That the Post Master General again apprised vide letter dated 15.10.2013 about the status of execution case as well as compliance of original order of the DCF to satisfy the recovery issued by

7. That the P.M.G., Gorakhpur permitted the deponent to change the advocate in the State Commission,

8. That the said opinion was sent to the Regional Office vide letter dated 09.11.2013 and 11.11.2013 for further instructions. The Regional Office vide its letter dated 13.12.2013 instructed to update latest status of case to forward the same to the Head of U.P. Circle. The deponent again vide letter dated 12.12.2013 replied to the Regional Office. In turn, the Regional Office summoned the competent officer of the Division who was well acquainted with the case.

9. That the Regional Office

6. It is trite that the idea underlying the concept of limitation is that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature. At the same time, courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay provided “sufficient cause” is shown by the applicant for not availing the remedy within the prescribed period of limitation. (See: Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & However, what The principle to be kept in view while dealing with prayer for N. (1998) 7 SCC 123 in the following words:-

“Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation

fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time.”

7. Recently in Postmaster Ors.

“In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

8. (2011) 14 SCC 578, while declining to condone a delay of 233 days in filing appeal against an order passed by this Commission, the

9. Bearing in mind these broad principles, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners have failed to make out “sufficient cause” for However, assuming, as pleaded, the order was brought to the notice of the Divisional Officer in the first week of March 2013, yet the said office took more than a month to forward the same to the Regional Officer at Gorakhpur. Furthermore, it is not stated as to when the application for recall of order dated 05.09.2012 was filed, although in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajeev It clearly shows a totally casual and indifferent attitude of the officials of the Petitioners in prosecuting the case. We are not satisfied with the explanation, extracted above, and therefore, we decline to condone the delay.

10. We are conscious of the fact that in the light of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in (supra), strictly speaking, the Complaint under the Act was perhaps not maintainable but having regard to the quantum of the amount involved and the conduct of the Petitioners in not refunding an amount of `10,000/- to the Complainant since June 1996, when the penalty levied on him was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, it would be travesty of justice to relegate the Complainant to approach an appropriate forum for refund of a sum of `10,000/- from the Petitioners, who have taken a year to challenge the order of the State Commission and almost 7 years in questioning the correctness of order passed by the District Forum, more so when in the written statement filed before the District Forum, the Petitioners had not contested the Complaint on the merits of the claim.

11. Therefore, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercise of our revisionary jurisdiction. The Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly.