Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/754/2022

S.K. MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA - Opp.Party(s)

18 Oct 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	754 OF 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	02.11.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	18.10.2023

 

 

 

 

Surinder Kumar Mittal, age 72 years, S/o Late Sh.Munshi Ram, R/o H.No.306, Sector 12, Panchkula Haryana

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  State of Haryana, through Director of Employment, Sector 14, Panchkula.

2]  Accountant General, Haryana, Sector-33, Chandigarh.

    ….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, PRESIDENT

         MR.B.M.SHARMA,            MEMBER

   

Present:-  Complainant in person

Sh.Naveen Kumar, Authorised Representative of OP No.1 alon with Sh.A.P.S.Virk, ADA for the OP No.1

OP No.2 exparte.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.),LLM, PRESIDENT

 

         The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he is a retired employee of State of Haryana having retired on 20.4.2003 and is entitled to the payment of GPF as per the provisions of Haryana Civil Service Rules.  It is stated that the GPF deducted and deposited by the State Government in respect of his service, is lying deposited with OP No.2.  It is also stated that the complainant is suffering from hearing problem and as such consulted an ENT Specialist on 11.1.2022, who after detailed inspection of his ears, advised him to use hearing aid (Ann.C-1).  The complainant came to know the cost of hearing aid to be Rs.2 lacs apart from other medical expenses and as such, the complainant vide application dated 1.2.2022 requested the OP NO.2 to pay Rs.5 lacs to him from his GPF account (Ann.C-2 & C-3).  It is submitted that the OPs are releasing the amount to the complainant and they willfully defaulted in managing the GPF account of the complainant.  It is also submitted that earlier also the complainant, requested the OPs for refund of Rs.50,000/- from his GPF which they denied and then he approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing C.W.P. No.7057 of 2011, after which, per order of Hon’ble High Court, the OP No.2 released the amount.  It is pleaded that the Ops are negligent and there is clear deficiency in service on their part in denying rightful claim of the complainant for release of amount from his GPF account. Therefore, the present complaint has been filed with a prayer to  direct  OPs to release partial amount of Rs.4 lacs to the complainant from his GPF account, apart from paying compensation and litigation cost.

 

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed written version stating that the complainant is a retired Haryana Govt. Employee and he was compulsorily retired from Govt. Service on 20.4.2003.  It is stated that the complainant is habitual litigant. It is submitted that final payment of GPF balance became due to him on 21.4.2003 and he was required to apply for GPF final payment, but he did not do so for more than 12 years.  It is also submitted that the complainant applied for GPF final payment only after orders of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court during hearing on 11.1.2016 in CWP No.21331 of 2015 and on receipt of GPF final payment case on 20.1.2016, the GPF final payment amounting to Rs.94,209/- including interest upto 10/2003 was authorised.  It is pleaded that after retirement of the complainant on 20.4.2003 and after final withdrawal, now nothing remains due to be paid to the complainant.  It is also pleaded that the CWP No.21331 of 2015 filed by the complainant with respect to his withdrawal from his GPF account is still pending adjudication.  It is also submitted that the complainant is not a consumer qua OPs as per Consumer Protection Act.  It is asserted that the application of complainant dated 01.2.2022, was rejected vide letter dated 11.2.2022. Denying other allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       The complainant also filed an application for interim relief with a prayer to direct the OPs to immediately provide him Rs.One lakh required for medical purpose i.e. purchase of hearing aid.

 

4]       The OP No.1 has also filed reply to the said application of the complainant and reiterated the assertions as made by them in their written version mentioned above, hence needs not to be repeated again. 

 

5]       The OP No.2 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 02.02.2023.

 

6]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

7]       We have heard the complainant in person, authorized representative of OP No.1 along with A.D.A. and perused entire documents on record.

5]       Firstly we have to consider as to whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ under The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or not?

6]       The complainant has pleaded that he is a retired employee of the State of Haryana i.e. State Government and his claim is with regard to withdrawal of G.P.F. deducted by his employer during his service and maintained by them.   

7]       The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petitions No.961/1997, 933/2001, 1115/2001, 1319/2001 and 1775/2001 filed by The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr. against Shivkant Shankar Naik, Sitaram Yadav, Bhuwan Chandra Panty, D.R.Nagwanshi & Anr., decided on 13.12.2002 has categorically held as under:-

“Here in this batch of revisions petitions all the complainants were State Government employees and as such governed by the statutory rules applicable to their respective service and for the purpose of raising service dispute to go the State Administrative Tribunal wherever established or to any authority except to the Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986….

          We hold that dispute raised by the complainants-respondents is not 'consumer dispute' and they are not 'consumers' and Accountant Generals are not running any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986”. 

 

8]       Therefore, it is clear that relationship between the complainant and OPs is that of employer & employee and the complainant a retired State Government employee is being governed by the statutory rules applicable thereto. Hence, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ qua OPs and does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ under The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

         In view of above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that interim application of the complainant as well as the present complaint is not maintainable.

         Moreover, earlier in 2018 a similar Consumer Complaint No.122/2018 was filed by the complainant before this Commission (earlier known as Forum) which had been dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2018 holding that ‘the complaint regarding General Provident Fund is not maintainable’ before Consumer Forum but the complainant again filed the present complaint regarding ‘General Provident Fund’. The complainant also did not disclose the fact of filing earlier complaint in 2018 in the present complaint and thereby concealed material information from this Commission. Therefore, the application as well as present complaint are hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.1000/- to be to deposit by the complainant in the “Consumer Legal Aid Account” No.32892854721, IFSC Code: SBIN0003246, maintained with the State Bank of India, Sector 7-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh in the name of Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission UT Chandigarh.

         This order shall be complied with by the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties as well as to The Secretary, Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

18.10.2023                                                                    Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER