DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Surinder Kumar Mittal, H.No.306, Sector 12, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

                                       V E R S U S

State Government of Haryana  through

1.       The Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Civil       Secretariat, Chandigarh.

2.       The Director of Employment, SCO No.17, Sector 7,          Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

                   DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA         MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                     Sh.Rajbir Singh, Accounts Officer/Agent for OPs                            No.1 & 2. 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Surinder Kumar Mittal, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the State Govt. of Haryana through The Chief Secretary & Anr. - Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he served the Haryana State from 14.1.1977 to 20.4.2003 and has been a permanent officer under the State Government of Haryana. He has contended that he is a consumer of the OPs. The complainant has further alleged that he had filed one CWP No.7057 of 2011 – Flag P-1 for getting advance from his GPF. Hon’ble High Court was pleased to provide the complainant with the advance prayed for by him, after he furnished the indemnity bond vide order at Flag P-2. It has been contended that in view of the order of the Hon’ble High Court his entitlement as per Rule 13.14, based on Rule 13.6 was established. It has been further alleged that under Rule 13.16, a subscriber is entitled to obtain advance from his GPF account for the payment of premiums of Insurance Policies. The complainant applied for advance from GPF vide his application dated 15.10.2011 at Flag P-4. The complainant was called by OP No.2 in his office on 4.11.2011 vide Flag P-5 but on that date OP No.2 did not discuss the entitlement of the complainant for GPF advance. It has been further alleged that OP No.2 had withdrawn an amount of Rs.12,390/- in illegal way vide Flag P-6. Later on, OP No.2 admitted his act of extortion in the year 2011 when he deposited an amount of Rs.8850/- vide Flag P-7 in the GPF account of the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that OP No.2 had allowed conversion of partial amount of GPF advance vide Flag P-8 for payment of premium of insurance policy of Aegon Religare on the basis of his application dated 14.7.2011. It has been prayed that OP No.2 be directed to provide the complainant with the requested advance, apart from making payment of compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                OPs in their written statement have pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer but a retired Government employee and the dispute does not fall within the ambit of provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It has been averred that the complainant is not submitting documents for final payment of balance fund and wrongly claiming the advance from the GPF account, as advances are given only to the serving employees of Government as per GPF rules. It has been further stated that the complainant had earlier filed CWP No. 16996 of 2004, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court on 1.11.2004 directing the respondent to dispose of the representation of the complainant in accordance with rules and the Director, Employment Department, Haryana vide its letter No.30563 dated 27.12.2004 had passed a speaking order and the complainant was informed that as per Chapter 13 of C.S.R. Volume II, the advance could be given only to those employees who were still in Government service. The complainant was directed to submit his prescribed forms for receiving final payments as per Rule 13 and after retirement, he was not eligible for any advance for payment of LIC premium. It has also been stated that the complainant was given three months notice vide office order dated 15.1.2003 in the public interest in respect of his retirement and after the expiry of three months on 20.4.2003 he was compulsorily retired at the age of 50 years by the order of the Government at Annexure R-3. The said order has been challenged in CWP No.5818 of 2003 and the case is still pending in the Hon’ble High Court. It has been averred that the complainant has already crossed the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. It has been stated that in CWP No.7057 of 2011, on an interim direction of Hon’ble High Court on 30.5.2011, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was released after the complainant furnished the indemnity bond. It has been stated that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands because the Hon’ble High Court has already observed on 14.9.2011 that the complainant does not wish to draw the remaining amount lying in the General Provident Fund as he apprehends that on his doing so, his Writ Petition challenging his compulsory retirement may be rendered infructuous.  It has been further stated that the alleged amount of Rs.12,390/- was withdrawn by the Accountant General (AG), Haryana against the recovery of House Building Advance. The amount of Rs.8850/- mentioned by the complainant relates to subscription amount for the months of August, October, December, 2002 and January & March, 2003 @Rs.1770/- per month, when the complainant was in Government service.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                We have gone through the written arguments of the complainant and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and the agent of OPs No.1 & 2.

5.                The copy of order dated 15.1.2003 – Annexure R-3 reveals that the complainant Mr.S.K.Mittal, District Employment Officer, Town Employment Exchange, Mahendergarh was ordered to be retired from the service after attaining the age of 50 years in public interest by giving him three months notice. The copy of order dated 14.9.2011 – Annexure R-4 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.7057 of 2011 shows that the complainant had filed a writ petition challenging his compulsory retirement. The complainant moved an application dated 14.7.2011 – Flag P-8 to the Director of Employment, Haryana for conversion of GPF advance towards utilization for premium of LIC policies. Thus, the most material question for determination is whether the complainant, who had retired as District Employment Officer as far back as on 20.4.2003 is a consumer of the OPs or not.

6.                According to Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the consumer means any person who, --

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system or deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of]  the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

[Explanation – For the purpose of this clause, “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self- employment;]

Evidently in the instant case, the complainant has not bought any goods from the OPs. He has also not hired or availed any services for a consideration from the OPs. Since the complainant has already retired from Government service on 20.4.2003, therefore, his application filed on 14.7.2011 for making payment of the balance amount of his GPF towards the payment of the premium of alleged insurance policy is not maintainable. It is important to note that earlier the complainant also filed one CWP No.16996 of 2004, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court directed the Haryana State to pass a speaking order on his representation. The copy of order dated 27.12.2004 – Annexure R-1 shows that since the complainant had been compulsorily retired in public interest on 20.4.2003, it was not possible to release any amount to him through GPF and he could take the final payment after filling up the prescribed proformas and submitting it to the District Employment Officer, Bhiwani, so that he could get the final payment. The copy of the opinion – Annexure R-2 of the Legislative Department also shows that the employee is not entitled to take advance from GPF after his retirement and after the order dated 27.12.2004 having been passed, no advance can be allowed from GPF.

7.                It is no doubt true that in CWP No.7057 of 2011 Hon’ble High Court passed an order on 30.5.2011, whereby, an interim direction was given to the State of Haryana etc. to release the amount for the surgery of the complainant on furnishing the indemnify bond and an undertaking subject to final settlement. However, in that order Hon’ble High Court nowhere held that the complainant was a consumer and he was entitled to an advance from his GPF amount even after retirement.

7-A.            The complainant has referred to extracts of judgments in his written arguments and has contended that he is a consumer and the OPs are the service providers. However, we find that those rulings relate to the Employees Family Pension Scheme with Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Medi Claim Policy etc.  The complainant has drawn our attention to one ruling State Bank of India Vs. N.K.Sharma, Appeal No. 170 of 2010 decided by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh on 24.9.2010 and has contended that after the date of his retirement, there was no relationship of employee and employer and the complainant became a consumer of the OPs. After going through the ruling of that case, we find that, that ruling relates to a housing loan taken by the complainant of that case as an employee of State Bank of India. In that case, the loan was advanced to the complainant when he was an employee of State Bank of India but, thereafter, he took voluntary retirement and executed a supplementary agreement, whereby, the concessional rate of interest granted to him was withdrawn and he was treated as any other member of the general public and a higher rate of interest was agreed to be paid by him. It was in that context that it was held that relationship between the parties no longer remained as that of an employee and an employer and the complainant of that case became a consumer and the OPs were the service providers. In the instant case, the position is entirely different because the complainant has been compulsorily retired from service on 20.4.2003 and he has been claiming deficiency on the part of OPs on the ground that they are not sanctioning advance from GPF to him for making payment of the insurance premium. We feel that the dispute between the parties is not related to consumerism. The complainant has not hired the services of OPs for consideration and by no stretch of reasoning he can be treated as a consumer. The payment of GPF is granted by the Ops while discharging their statutory functions and they do not receive any consideration from the employee and they do not render any service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.                Apart from the above infirmity in the case of the complainant, we find that the order dated 14.9.2011 – Annexure R-4 passed by the Hon’ble High Court shows that the complainant was released an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of his General Provident Fund pursuant to the order dated 30.5.2011 but he did not wish to withdraw the remaining amount lying in his General Provident Fund as he apprehended that on his doing so, his writ petition challenging his compulsory retirement may be rendered infructuous.  Since the relief claimed in the writ petition No.7057 of 2011 was allowed, the writ petition was rendered infructuous and was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court. At the cost of repetition, Hon’ble High Court never held in any of its orders that the complainant after his retirement could get advance from his GPF instead of final payment, after completing the requisite formalities.

9.                In regard to the contention of the complainant that OP No.2 had withdrawn an amount of Rs.12,390/- in an illegal way vide Flag P-6 and deposited an amount of Rs.8850/- vide Flag P-7 in his GPF account, which points out towards their illegality, a perusal of the statement of Provident Fund Accounts – Flag P-6 shows that an amount of Rs.12,390/- was withdrawn by the Accountant General, Haryana against the recovery of House Building Advance. In respect of the amount of Rs.8850/- deposited in the account of the complainant, a perusal of statement of Provident Fund Accounts – Flag P-7 shows that the amount of Rs.8850/- relates to subscription of GPF of the complainant for the months of 08/2002, 10/2002, 12/2002, 01/2003 & 03/2003 @Rs.1770/- per month. The complainant was in service during that period, therefore, that amount does not relate to repayment of Rs.12,390/- allegedly withdrawn by the Ops.

10.              For the reasons recorded above, we are unable to accept that the complainant is a consumer and the Ops are service providers and there is any deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

11.              The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.