Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/175/2015

Mrs.M.Vahitha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary, D.G.Vaishnav Collage - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

12 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  09.10.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  12.12.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY  THE 12th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.175/2015

 

 

Mrs.M.Vahitha,

No.19/21, Viswanathapuram III Street,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai – 600 024.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

Secretary,

D.G.Vaishnav  College,

Arumpakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.

 

Dr.T.Santhanam,

Head, Department of Computer Science,

D.G. Vaishnav College,

Arumpakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.

 

                                                                                                                         .....Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

    

 

Date of complaint                                 : 10.12.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : K.Shakespeare     

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the 1st opposite party to pay loss of salary income of Rs.5,40,000/-, balance remuneration of Rs.24,000/-, registration fee  and expenses of Rs.34,539/- and compensation for mental agony with interest and cost of the complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is a MCA Degree Holder from the 1st opposite party college and she applied for the post of lecturer in the college. The 1st opposite party permitted the complainant to work as a lecturer under the management quota in the department of computer science on a consolidated monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. She joined duty on 21.07.2000. During the year 2000 again the complainant was given contractual appointment order which is for 12 months on a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Though the contractual service was lapsed in the year 2010, she was not given extension and however she was permitted to work.

          2. The 2nd opposite party pressurized the complainant to join Ph.d.,  programme under his guidance and forced her to pay Rs.31,500/- immediately. The complainant research article was accepted in an international publishing company indexing the 2nd opposite party as co-author. The complainant asked the 2nd opposite party to correct the article, but he bluntly refused. Thereafter the complainant relinquished the job on 01.11.2012.  The 1st opposite party issued reliving order on 28.05.2014.

          3. The 2nd opposite party assigned remunerative outside work in 2007 for four women staff including the complainant to work at Cognizant Technological Solutions and they disbursed full remuneration to the opposite party, but they did not pay to them. After the complainant made complaint to the 1st opposite party, then only a part amount was paid to the complainant on 02.06.2014 out of the total remuneration of Rs.32,000/-. The 2nd opposite party had utilized the said amount for seven years.

          4. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties that the 1st opposite party issued relieving order  and service certificate in time,  she would have secured a suitable job for not less than a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month.  Hence the loss of salary for 18 months for the complainant is at Rs.5,40,000/-. Further he also entitled for a sum of Rs.24,000/- towards balance amount of CTS remuneration. The complainant by not issuing relieving order and service certificate and failed to pay the balance CTS remuneration and also forced to register Ph.d., registration is deficiency on the part of the opposite party and such acts caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint seeking various reliefs.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          There is no privity of contract of employment between CTS and complainant. The complainant for her work with CTS has been treated as on duty and she has received salary from the 1st opposite party. The complainant was not working in a sanctioned post and she left on 2012, as there was no contract of employment. The payment by the 1st opposite party a sum of Rs.8,000/- and issuing relieving order and service certificate is purely gratuitous. Hence, the demand made in the complaint is untenable, the complainant itself being a claim for damages cannot be decided in a summary enquiry before this Hon’ble Forum as such the complaint is not maintainable. Hence this opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with cost.

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant has whispered in none of the documents filed along with complaint, that she was forced to do Ph.d., or suffered monetarily on such account. The complainant for the first time alleged that this 2nd opposite party forced her to enroll for Ph.d., programme by her guide but had acted with malice. The allegations are devoid of merits. In Academia the guides will not canvass for the scholars to pursue Ph.d., but only the scholars approach the guides to consider them for doing research under their guidance. Therefore the allegations that this opposite party pressurized the complainant to do Ph.d., under his guidance and forced her to pay the fees, is false and devoid of merits. The complainant  resigned from the college on the health grounds from 01.11.2012 due to Cervical Spondylosis and Vertigo problem and her allegation that it was due to her disgust and disappointment with this opposite party, is an afterthought, which is baseless and untenable. The complainant was not a regular staff of unaided stream. Her employment was temporary, gratuitous. The claim towards loss of salary, non-payment of dues is untenable and devoid of merits and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

8. POINT NO :1

          The admitted facts are that the complainant is a MCA degree holder and she joined as a lecturer on 21.07.2000 in the opposite parties computer science department for a  consolidated salary of Rs.8,000/- per month and in the year 2009, the National Assessment & Accreditation Committee visited the college and that time she was given a contractual appointment order for12 months on a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month and though the said appointment lapsed in 2010, her service was not extended and however she was permitted to work in the same salary and she had relinquished on 01.11.2012 and her relieving order and service certificate was issued on 28.05.2014 by the 1st opposite party.

          9. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties that the 1st opposite party issued relieving order  and service certificate on 28.05.2014 and if he had issued such a certificate  in time,  she would have secured a suitable job for not less than a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month and  hence the loss of  salary for 18 months for the complainant is at Rs.5,40,000/- and further she was not paid a sum of Rs.24,000/- towards balance amount of CTS remuneration and further the complainant was forced to register Ph.d., course and to pay a sum of Rs.31,500/- by the 2nd opposite party and hence thereby the opposite parties have  committed deficiency in service to the complainant.

          10. Admittedly the complainant was worked in the department of computer science at the 1st opposite party college. During the course of her service, the 2nd opposite party forced her to join Ph.d., programme and also made her to pay a sum of Rs.31,500/-. The complainant filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A45 and none of the documents proves that the 2nd opposite party forced the complainant to join the Ph.d., programme. Further, the complainant is a M.C.A Degree Holder and was working as a lecturer in the 1st opposite party college was forced to join the course is not at all acceptable. Hence the 2nd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service in this regard to the complainant.

          11. The complainant himself admits that  four women employees, including herself  were deputed to the Cognizant Technology Solutions and they worked and the CTS sent remuneration of Rs.32,000/- to the opposite parties and the complainant was also paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- before filing of this complaint. Having four employees were worked and only a sum of Rs.32,000/- was received by the opposite parties and the complainant share would be only Rs.8,000/- and the same was paid to her and therefore in this respect also the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency.                  

          12. The complainant tendered resignation in Ex.A10 due to her health grounds on 01.11.2012. The contention of the complainant that the 1st opposite party issued the relieving order in time she could have secured a suitable job and earned salary of Rs.5,40,000/- for 18 months and such a salary is loss to her and the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Having tendered the resignation on health grounds under Ex.A10 and she would have secured another job is not acceptable in view of her health condition. Further, the dispute between the complainant and the opposite party is employer and employee relationship. When the employer and employee relationship exists between them, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service has not been proved by the complainant. Therefore, we hold that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

13. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 12th day of December 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 31.10.2007

Letter of 2nd opposite party to 1st opposite party informing deputation to CTS

 

Ex.A2 dated 01.06.2009

Proceedings of 1st opposite party appointing complainant on contractual basis for one year

 

 

Ex.A3 dated 13.10.2009

Ph.D. Registration of complainant under 2nd opposite party

 

Ex.A4 dated 13.10.2009

Demand Draft for Rs.31,500.00 taken by complainant

 

Ex.A5 dated NIL

Ph.D selection letter to complainant

 

Ex.A6 dated 21.07.2010

Fees of Rs.3,039/- paid by complainant to Regional Office, Thiruvannamalai

 

Ex.A7 dated 29.10.2010

Letter of complainant to 1st opposite party with recommendation of 2nd opposite party

 

 

Ex.A8 dated 11.11.2010

Caution letter from Regional Office, Erode on cheating of previous Director

 

Ex.A9 dated 11.06.2012

Research paper of complainant accepted in International publishing company

 

Ex.A10 dated 01.11.2012

Resignation letter of complainant to 1st opposite party

 

Ex.A11 dated 20.11.2012

Reply of 1st opposite party to complainant

 

Ex.A12 dated 30.11.2012

Reply of 1st opposite party rejecting to waive notice or one month salary

 

Ex.A13 dated 21.12.2012

Reply of complainant to 1st opposite party explaining the reasons for resigning and misdeeds of 2nd opposite party and also non-payment of remuneration

 

Ex.A14 dated 19.05.2014

Representation of complainant’s father to 1st opposite party, Government, and National Commission for Scheduled Castes

 

Ex.A15 dated 28.05.2014

Relieving order issued by 1st opposite party

 

Ex.A16 dated 28.05.2014

Service Certificate issued by 1st opposite party

 

Ex.A17 dated 02.06.2014

Letter of 1st opposite party to complainant with two cheques; one for remuneration of CTS training and salary for 17 days

 

Ex.A18  dated 14.06.2014

Rejoinder 1st opposite party on misuse of complainant’s remuneration and balance of Rs.24,000.00

 

Ex.A19 dated 24.06.2014

Reply of 1st opposite party to complainant for clarification of remuneration for CTS training

 

 

 

Ex.A20 dated 03.07.2014

Complainant’s reply to National Commission for Scheduled Castes marking copies to Government and 1st opposite party

 

Ex.A21 dated 14.11.2014

Letter of Joint Director of Collegiate Education to 1st opposite party to furnish details of amount received for CTS program

 

Ex.A22 dated 13.08.2015

Reply from Government to complainant’s father, NB: opposite party receives 100% grant from Government

 

Ex.A23 dated 18.02.2000

Complainant’s M.C.A Degree copy

 

Ex.A24 dated 21.07.2000

Complainant’s application for post

 

Ex.A25 dated 15.02.2016

RTI Application filed complainant’s father

 

Ex.A26 dated 01.03.2016

Reply from Principal, D.G.Vaishnav college asking cost and search fees

 

Ex.A27 dated 05.03.2016

First Appeal to Joint Director of Collegiate Education enclosing EMo’s acknowledgement dated 08.03.2016

 

Ex.A28 dated 22.03.2016

Reply from Joint Director to Principal asking for reasons for search fees

 

Ex.A29 dated 30.05.2016

Second Appeal at State Information Commission, Chennai  - 18

 

Ex.A30 dated 08.03.2016

Letter from University of Madras to complainant’s father regarding UGC norms exempting D.G.Vaishnanv College

 

Ex.A31 dated 11.01.2016

Reply from Bar Council of Tamil Nadu informing 1st opposite party is lawyer

 

 

Ex.A32 dated 24.06.2014

Letter of 1st opposite party to complainant marking a copy of National Commission of Scheduled Castes, Chennai – 6

 

Ex.A33 dated 14.07.2014

Reply from National Commission to complainant

 

Ex.A34 dated 09.09.2009

G.O (Ms) 350 Higher Education (H 1) Department with Appendix – II and Fitment Formula of pay Scale

 

Ex.A35 dated 13.07.2009

Complainant’s M.Phil Degree copy

 

Ex.A36 dated 18.03.2016

Letter of Joint Director of Collegiate Education to complainant’s father enclosing CTS Remuneration disbursement to FIVE female lecturers signed by the principal, D.G.Vaishnav College. Ie, 1st opposite party’s college

 

Ex.A37 dated 02.08.2016

Orders of State Information Commission, Chennai-18

1.Para:15, Lines : 1 & 2

Total NINE items are ordered to furnish information

 

Ex.A38 dated 04.08.2016

Reply of opposite parties principal to complainant’s father

1.Information given only for EIGHT items

2.For query No.5(iv) information is omitted

3.This query is related to 2nd opposite party

 

 

 

 

 

Ex.A39 dated 01.06.2002

Proceedings of Joint Secretary of 1st opposite party

  1. 2nd para: Appointment is purely on contractual basis for one year only
  2. Salary Rs.6600/-

 

Ex.A40 dated 01.06.2004

Proceedings of Joint Secretary of 1st opposite party

  1. 2nd para: Appointment is purely on contractual basis for one year
  2. Salary Rs.8000/-

 

Ex.A41 dated 01.08.2007

Proceedings of Joint Secretary of 1st opposite party

  1. 2nd para: Appoint is purely on contractual basis for one year only
  2. Salary Rs.9000/-

 

Ex.A42 dated 24.07.2000

Proceedings of Secretary

1.Appointment in Evening College

2.Appointment w.e.f 24.07.2000

3.Appointment period till 31.05.2001

4.No acknowledgement of complt, or HOD’s initial or Principal initial

 

Ex.A43 dated NIL

List of Members of Shri Vallabhacharya Trust/Executive Council

1.Attested by Mr.S.R.Damani,

Secretary during 2002

2.Secretary during that period: Mr.Manoj Kumar K.Sonthalia

3.Bharath Kumar K.Shah who issued all the FOUR appointment orders from 2002 to 2004 was only a Member during this period of 2000 (S.No.7)

4. Mr.S.R.Damani, who is found to have signed the appointment order, was only a member during 2000 (S.No.9)

 

Ex.A44 dated 01.08.2007

Joining Report of complainant against Ex.A41

1.2nd opposite party forwarded to his principal

2.Principal has initiated to forward to joint Secretary

 

Ex.A45 dated 15.08.2016

News item in Times of India, an English Daily

1.opposite Parties  Principal was rapped by State Information Commission for violation of rules

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
    

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

 

Ex.B1 dated 01.11.2007                        

 

 

Salary paid to the deputed teachers for the month of October 2007

Ex.B2 dated 30.06.2008

Canara bank, SB A/c No. 20441 Remittance challan copy for Rs.48,770/-

 

Ex.B3 dated 24.06.2012

Medical Certificate from 18.06.2012 for three months

 

Ex.B4 dated 25.06.2012

Request letter to secretary for medical leave on loss of pay from 15.06.2012 to 30.11.2012

 

Ex.B5 dated 01.11.2012

Resignation letter from the complainant

 

Ex.B6 dated 26.11.2012

Resignation letter from the complainant

 

Ex.B7 dated 27.01.2016

E-mail from CTS confirming the payment of Rs.48,770/-

 

Ex.B8 dated NIL

Dravidian University profile from official website

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.