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)

    2^nd 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 12^th  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 1^st 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 1^st opposite party college and she applied for the post of lecturer in the college. The 1^st 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 2^nd 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 2^nd opposite party as co-author. The complainant asked the 2^nd opposite party to correct the article, but he bluntly refused. Thereafter the complainant relinquished the job on 01.11.2012.  The 1^st opposite party issued reliving order on 28.05.2014.

          3. The 2^nd 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 1^st 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 2^nd opposite party had utilized the said amount for seven years.

          4. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties that the 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 1^st opposite party.

          9. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties that the 1^st 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 2^nd 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 1^st opposite party college. During the course of her service, the 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 1^st opposite party college was forced to join the course is not at all acceptable. Hence the 2^nd 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 1^st 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 12^th 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 2nd para: Appointment is purely on contractual basis for one year only Salary Rs.6600/-
Ex.A40 dated 01.06.2004		Proceedings of Joint Secretary of 1st opposite party 2nd para: Appointment is purely on contractual basis for one year Salary Rs.8000/-
Ex.A41 dated 01.08.2007		Proceedings of Joint Secretary of 1st opposite party 2nd para: Appoint is purely on contractual basis for one year only 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