Haryana

StateCommission

A/1047/2015

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.C.KAPILA - Opp.Party(s)

MAHESH DHEER

02 Aug 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :   1047 of 2015

Date of Institution:     07.12.2015

Date of Decision :      02.08.2016

 

1.     The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, CPPC, (Pension Cell), Administrative Office, Sector-5, Panchkula, Haryana. 

2.     The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Opposite Bus Stand, Main Branch, Jagadhri.

                             Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

S.C. Kapila s/o late Shri Krishan Swaroop, Resident of House No.1550, Old Chhachhrauli Road, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:              Shri Mahesh Dheer, Advocate assisted by Shri Vijay Kumar Puri, Assistant Manager, for appellants. 

                             Shri Vinay Sharma-Grandson of respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This Opposite Parties’ appeal is directed against the order dated September 30^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint was allowed and the opposite parties/appellants, were directed to pay the difference of balance amount of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) as per the revised basic pension besides Rs.1500/- compensation and litigation expenses.

2.      Undisputed facts of the present case are that S.C. Kapila-complainant/respondent, is a retired Haryana Government employee and drawing pension through State Bank of India (SBI), Main Branch, Jagadhri, vide PPO No.29710/HR. The Haryana Government has granted the facility of LTC to its pensioners, vide Gazette Notification dated October 29^th, 2009. The LTC is payable once in a block of four years and is equal to one month basic pension plus Dearness Allowance (DA). Vide Haryana Government instructions vide Notification The 17^th April, 2009 (Annexure C-1), the pensioner is allowed additional pension @ 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and 100% at the age of 80, 85, 90,95 and 100 years respectively.

3.      The complainant-respondent was paid the LTC which is equivalent to his basic pension plus DA without adding the additional pension and DA thereon. The SBI refusing to pay, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed before the District Forum.

4.      The opposite parties/appellants, contested the complaint by filing written version. It was pleaded that the amount of LTC (Rs.19,436/-) was released to the complainant as per rules and regulations.  It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants-opposite parties has urged that the LTC is payable equivalent to the basic pension plus DA without adding the additional pension.

6.      The only issue arising is as to whether the additional pension payable to a pensioner on attaining the age of 80 years has to be taken into account for the purpose of LTC or not?

7.      In the instructions (Annexure R-2/2), vide which the facility of LTC was extended to the pensioners, defines “Pension” as under:-

“(iii)    “Pension” means the entitlement of basic pension inclusive of commuted pension and the dearness allowance admissible thereon being drawn under the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II as amended from time to time and as applicable to the pensioners of Haryana Government.”  

8.      The Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, vide letter dated 26^th May, 2016 (Annexure-A) issued to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Bank Square, Sector-17, Chandigarh, has further clarified that the additional pension plus DA thereon, cannot be admissible as Travel Concession to the Haryana Government pensioners. The relevant part of the letter (Annexure-A) reads as under:-

“I am directed to refer your letter dated 18.04.2016 on the subject noted above and to say that as per the provisions of Government letter dated 29^th October, 2009, only basic pension inclusive of commuted pension and DA, thereon is admissible as travel concession to the State Government pensioners. Therefore, the additional pension + DA thereon can not be admissible as travel concession to the Haryana Government Pensioners.”

9.      The bank is only the disbursing agency of the government. The LTC is paid by the government. The complainant has not redressed his grievance to the government and only sought direction to the bank to pay him the difference of basic pension plus DA and revised additional pension plus DA by adding additional pension and DA, as part of LTC.  Thus, as per the clarification (Annexure-A) by the Chief Secretary to Government, Haryana, the complainant is only entitled to the basic pension plus DA because the revised additional pension plus DA thereon, is not a part of LTC. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint. Hence, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

10.    For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.3666/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 02.08.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL