OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANGUL
PRESENT:- SRI DURGA CHARAN MISHRA.
PRESIDENT
A N D
Smt.Sunanda Mallick &Sri K.K.Mohanty,
MEMBERS .
Consumer Complaint No. 68 of 2016
Date of Filling : - 11.11.2016.
Date of Order :- 28.11.2017.
Sri Bansidhar Senapati,S/O.Chandranmani Senapathi,
At- Chandan Nagar,Kopsala,P.o.Kosala,P.S:-
Chhendipada,Dist.Angul.
_________________________Complainant.
Vrs.
- Sri Manunath Sethy,District Treasury Officer,
-
- Sri Lalit Kumar Patra,Branch Manager,
For the complainant :- Sri U.S.Mishra & associates(Advs.)
For the opp.party No.1:- Govt.Pleader.
For the opp.party No.2:- Sri R.P.Pattanaik & associates (Advs.)
: J U D G E M E N T :
Sri D. C. Mishra, President.
The petitioner has filed this case with prayer to pay him the arrear amount after properly fixing his pay as per 6th Pay Commission report w.e.f 1.1.2006 on the grounds stated therein.
2. The complainant’s case runs thus :-
That after completing 35 years of service the complainant retired on superannuation and his pension was fixed at Rs.3063.00 per month as because his pay was Rs. 6125.00 .It is averred that due to implementation of report of 6th Pay Commission w.e.f 1.1.2006 his pension was revised to Rs.6922.00 per month basing upom his previous pension of Rs. 3063.00 per month. On 6.2.2009 the pesion of the complaiant was revised to Rs. 3800.00 per month w.e.f 1.1.2006 as per Finance Deptt. letter No. 6575 dt. 6.2.2009 .The complaint has specifically averred that his pension has been revised by the Principal Accountant General ( A & E ) Orissa,Bhubaneswar from 1.1.2006 to be Rs. 3,800.00 per month ,for which the revised pension w.e.f 1.1.2006 should be calculated ,taking his pension to be Rs 3800.00 per month but the opp.parties did not pay any heed and continuing to make payment fixing his revised pension basing on old pension of Rs. 3063.00 per month. Therefore, he has filed this case, seeking the reliefs as already stated above in Para- 1 above.
3. Both the opp.parties have contested the case by filing separate written versions with prayer to dismiss the case as not maintainable and without any merit.
4. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties the following issues arise for consideration :-
(i) Whether the case is maintainable at this late stage or not ?
(ii) Whether there is consumer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the opp.parties ?
(iii) To what reliefs the petitioner is entitled to ?
: I S S U E S :
Issue No.(i):-
From the repeated letters submitted by the complainant to the opp.parties as well as to the A.G (A&E) Orissa ,Bhubaneswar who is the final pension sanctioning authority it is presumed that the petitioner is continuously making efforts to get his dues. So his case is not barred by limitation or any other law and it is maintainable .
Issue No.(ii):- Opp.party No.1 is the pension sanctioning authority and opp.party No.2 is the pension disbursing authority,where as the A.G (A & ) Orissa is the final authority for payment of pension. After getting representation of the petitioner Banshidhar Senapati and clarification letters of opp.party No.1 (District Treasury Officer,Angul), the O/O Principal ,A.G (A & E ) Orissa Bhubaneswaer has clarified vide letter No. PRC-3/191802/11-12/14-15/ PRC-D.O.No. 62 dt.20.10.2014 that the revised pension of the complainant has been fixed @ Rs. 3800.00 per month w.e.f 1.1.2006. Since the previous pension of the complainant was fixed at Rs. 3,800.00 w.e.f 1.1.2006 , his revised pension should be fixed accordingly. The relevant portion of the clarification letter o O/O.Principal Accountant General (A & E ) Odisha ,Bhubaneswar is extracted below :-
“With reference to the letter numbers cited above ,I am to say that Sri Bansidhar Senapati has been authorized revised pension and family pension @Rs.3,800.00 + T.I in term of G.O.,F.D letter No. 6575 –Pen-181/2008-F dt.6.2.2009 respectively ,subject to payment of consolidated pension/family pension payable with effect from 01.01.2006 as per Para-4 of G.O,F.D,O.M No. Pen-181/08-3667/F dated19.01.2009 i.e pension @ 6922/- + T.I (enhanced) and family pension @ Rs.4,154/- + T.I ( normal rate) to be worked out by the Disbursing Officer,i.e Treasury Officer,District Treasury,Angul and the said revision of pension/family pension authority issued vide this office letter No. 8105-8107 dated 30.6.2011”.
Thus it is clear that less pension i.e basing on pre-revised pension of Rs. 3063.00 is now given to the complainant but the highest pension sanctioning authority has authorized pre-revised pension of Rs. 3,800.00 per month. Therefore, the pensioner is entitled to get the arrear amount w.e.f 1.1.2006 .When the amount is due and the highest pension sanctioning authority have passed it, the opp.parties are only to carry out it but they have blocked the amount of the complainant. Thus, there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties.
The petitioner has relied on the decision reported in “2004(2) CJD (S.C) 88” where in it has been held that :-
“ A- consumer Protection Act,1985- The Act has a wide reach and the authorities have jurisdiction even in cases of service rendered by statutory and public authorities-Such authorities become liable to compensate for misfeasance in public office i.e an act which is oppressive or capricious or arbitrary or negligent provided loss or injury is suffered by a citizen”.
He has also relied upon another decision reported in “C.D No. 112 of 1990”,Jaya Krushna Samal Vrs. State of Orissa & others. where in it has been held that :-
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2 (1)(d)-Consumer-Complainant executed work for State Government on food for work programme-Claim for damages on account of negligence on the part of State Govt. employees in rendering necessary services to complainant-Whether complainant is a consumer- Yes.
Held:- Those who are employed by the State Government are governed under Articles 309,310 and 311 of the Constitution. They are paid by the State Government. Payment to officers of the State Government is not gratuitous. They are expected to render their services. Where such services are in relation to State Government only without any third party involved, such third party is not a consumer. Where, however, a third party becomes the beneficiary of such service by an employee, State Government having paid for the service for benefit of the third party, such third party is a consumer. When State Government has entrusted the duty for payment for the work done to the third party ,deficiency in service of such employees can be made a grievance. Non-payment or delayed payment is a deficiency in service. Accordingly, this redressal forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Besides, meaning of “service” in the Act is wide and includes any service”.
In the present case the opp.party No.1 being a govt.servant and opp.party No.2 being a Bank Manager have neglected in due discharge of their duties. So as per the above decisions there is consumer and service provider relationship between the parties.
Issue No.(iii):- Since the revised pension has been fixed calculating upon old pension of Rs. 3063.00 per month but the Principal, Accountant General (A & E ) Odisha, has revised the old pension to be Rs.3800.00 per month w.e.f 1.1.2006 ,the revised pension of the complainant as per 6th Pay Commission report should be calculated basing on pension of Rs. 3800.00 per month. The new revised pension w.e.f 1.1.2006 would be Rs.3800.00 X 186% + 40% T.I which will be around Rs. 8588.00 per month but he has been paid @ Rs. 6922.00 per month. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the differential amount and subsequent enhanced T.I. Since the petitioner retired from service from 31.1.2004 and his pension has been revised w.e.f 1.1.2006 he is not entitled to get any arrear on gratuity and commutated value of pension.
5. Hence the order :-
: O R D E R :
The opp.parties are directed to calculate the revised pension of the complainant basing on his monthly pension @ Rs. 3,800.00 per month w.e.f 1.1.2006 and pay the arrear amount along with subsequent enhanced T.I till date within 45 days of getting this order. In case of any violation of this order, the opp.parties shall pay interest @ 12% per annum to the complainant from 46th day of getting this order besides getting other penalties provided in the Act.
Order delivered in the open forum
today the 28th Novembery,2017 with hand and seal of this Forum.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me Sd/-
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
Sd/- President.
(Sri D. C. Mishra)
President .
Sd/-
Sd/- (Sri K.K.Mohanty),
(Smt.S.Mallick) Member.
Member.
