BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 143 of 2016
Date of Institution : 2.6.2016
Date of Decision : 2.8.2016
Daulat Ram, aged 85 years, Retd. JBT Teacher s/o Sh.Gainda Ram Khatter), r/o Gali Khaiwali, Sirsa.
….Complainant.
Versus
- State of Haryana through Collector, Sirsa.
- Director, Elementary Education Haryana, Panchkula.
- Sh.Virender, Block Elementary Education Officer, Rania
- District Elementary Education Officer, Sirsa
- Headmaster/Incharge, Primary School, Kelnia
- Sh.Narender Kumar, Dealing Clerk, DEEO, Sirsa.
..…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………….PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.J.N.Monga, Advocate for the complainant.
ORDER
In nut-shell, complainant’s case is that he was JBT teacher with Punjab and his services were transferred in Haryana in December 1968. As such, he served the Ops as JBT teacher till 1.8.1982 when he retired from his service. At the time of Punjab Government GPF account no.15364 was allotted to him and he contributed the account from December 1968 to April 1969. Thereafter, GPF account no.13553 was allotted to him in Haryana. Grievances of the complainant are that GPF amount for the period 4/67 to 4/69 amounting to Rs.141/- is still pending to be paid to him. The Punjab Government transferred the amount in question to Haryana Govt., but the Ops are deficient and negligent qua their services and they are not paying the amount of Rs.141/- alongwith upto date interest to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. Heard on the maintainability of the complaint before this Forum. Ld. counsel for complainant cited case law National Foundation for Communal Harmony Vs. Balwant Singh & Anr., 2008(1) CLT 480. The facts of the case cited by the ld. counsel are on different footing because the case cited was against the EPF authority who maintained the EPF account and not against the Employer of the petitioner. The present case is against the Employer-department of the complainant. It is a settled law that an employee is not a consumer of the Employer rather their relations are known as servant and employer. In these circumstances, present complaint does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ laid down under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, present complaint is hereby dismissed being not a consumer dispute. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:2.8.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
