Heard learned counsel for the  appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.     This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’ in short). Parties hereinafter were arrayed as the complainants and OPs as per their nomenclature before the learned District Forum.

3.     The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant was engaged as Watchman – cum – Sweeper by OP No. 4 who was working as Medical officer, Govt. Ayurvedic Dispensary, Kujendri. It is alleged inter alia that he was holding the temporary post from July, 2012 to June, 2014 being duly recommended by the State of Odisha and OP Nos. 1 to 3. But the complainant alleged inter aliathat he was not paid wages for the working period. Thereafter, he filed the complaint case.

4.     OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed written version stating that the complainant is not a consumer and the  case is not coming  under the purview of the Act. They have paid all the wages as per the scheme. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

5.     After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“xxxxxxxxx

The complaint petition of the complainant is allowed on contest. The OP No. 3 is ordered to consider his application for release of the wages as per his grievance and consider for appointment as Part Time Sweeper. The Op No. 3 also order to recovery the wage amount alongwith the compensation andlitigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- from the Office staffs of OP No. 1 as well as from the OP No. 4 who has intentionallyharassed the poor ST unemployed boy to get his legitimate dues. The OP No. 3 ordered to take immediate and necessary steps at their level.

The petition of the complaint is allowed on contest against the OPs. The order should be complied by the OPs within 30 days of receipt of this order.

Failing which the complainant is at all liberty to file execution proceeding as provided u/s 25 and 27 C.P.Act. As well as the complainant can approach any appropriate court of the gross negligent of the Ops. The petitiondisposed  accordingly.”

6.     Learned counsel for the appellantsubmitted that  the learned District Forum have passed the impugned order illegally because the OPs are all Govt,. Officers and as per the scheme of the State Govt. they have engaged the complainant as Watchman-cum-Sweeper. Since the Govt. and its Officers are not service provider, the complaint case is not maintainable. In support of his submission, he cited the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dr.JagmittarSainBhagatvrs. Dir. Health Services, Haryana & Others (2013) 10 SCC 136. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.     Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

8.     The fact of engagement of the complainant as Watchman-cum-Sweeper under the instruction of State Government by OP No. 4 is admitted who is admittedly Govt. Doctor.  In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in DrJagmittarSainBhagat (Supra), the consumercompliant against the government or its officer is not maintainable. We are of the view that such complaint is not maintainable. Learned District Forum without going through the materials properly has unnecessarily passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

9.     The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

        DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.