1. Heard Mr. Siddharth Srivastava, Advocate, for the petitioner and Ms. Shobha Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. 2. Above revision has been filed against the order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Kota, dated 28.10.2021, passed in First Appeal No.88 of 2021 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota, dated 31.03.2021 passed in CC/198/2016), whereby District Forum dismissed the complaint and State Commission dismissed the appeal. 3. Alok Gupta (the petitioner) filed CC/198/2016 for directing the respondents to pay (i) pension and gratuity, as per Service Rules; (ii) compounding interest @18% per annum, on the arrears of pension and gratuity; (iii) Rs.10000/- as litigation costs; and (iv) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper in the fact of the case. The complainant stated that Rajasthan State Electricity Board now Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam (for short the Nigam) was a statutory corporation. The complainant was posted as “Junior Engineer First (Mechanical) on 14.02.1990 at Rajasthan State Electricity Division, Kota and remained there till his promotion on 24.01.2004. After promotion, he was posted at Giral Lignite (Thermal Power Project), Badmer. The complainant gave a letter for resignation from service on 12.02.2007 w.e.f. 21.02.2007, due to personal reasons. Executive Engineer (Store), vide letter dated 13.02.2007, directed the complainant to handover charge to Vijay Singh Parihar, Junior Engineer before 21.02.2007. As Vijay Singh Parihar, Junior Engineer was on leave, Executive Engineer (Store) took charge on 20.02.2007. President & Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam, Kota Zone accepted his resignation on 29.03.2007 w.e.f. 21.02.2007 and directed to deposit the salary for the period, which was short for the requisite notice period. The complainant deposited Rs.20068/- on 19.09.2007 i.e. salary for the short period of notice. The complainant had completed 17 years continuous service and was entitled for pension under Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1988 as under Regulation-50 qualifying service period was 15 years, for pension. The complainant was entitled for gratuity under Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpathan Nigam Limited Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 as under Rule-3, qualifying service period was 5 years, for gratuity. The complainant made oral request several time for sanction of his pension and gratuity, which were not accepted. The complainant then gave legal notice dated 05.11.2009 to the opposite parties for giving his gratuity and pension. The opposite parties replied the notice, vide notice dated 01.01.2010 stating that on resignation ‘Leave Encashment’ amount of Rs.102977/- had been sanctioned on 04.02.2008 and GPF amount on 13.10.2009. Resignation entails forfeiture of pensionery benefits under Regulation-19 of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1988 as such pension and gratuity were not payable. The pension was payable in every month as such it was continuous cause of action. On these allegations, the complaint was filed on 29.04.2016. 4. The respondents filed its written reply, in which, appointment of the complainant as “Junior Engineer First (Mechanical) on 14.02.1990 at Rajasthan State Electricity Division, Kota, continuing in service there till his promotion on 24.01.2004, posting at Giral Lignite (Thermal Power Project), Badmer, after promotion, submitting letter for resignation from service on 12.02.2007 w.e.f. 21.02.2007 and acceptance of his resignation by Joint Director (P & A), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Jaipur on 29.03.2007 w.e.f. 21.02.2007, have not been disputed. They stated that after resignation ‘Leave Encashment’ amount of Rs.102977/- was sanctioned on 04.02.2008 and GPF amount was sanctioned on 13.10.2009 to the complainant. Under Regulation-19 of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1988, resignation entails forfeiture of past services as such pension and gratuity were not payable. The opposite parties in their reply notice dated 01.01.2010, informed the complainant that he was not entitled for gratuity and pension. The complainant remained silent for a long period and filed this complaint on 29.04.2016, although Section-24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prescribed two years limitation, for filing the complainant. The complaint was long barred by limitation but no application for condonation of delay has been filed. The complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and the complaint is not maintainable. No cause of action arose within the limits of District Consumer Forum, Kota as such it has no territorial jurisdiction. The complaint was liable to be dismissed. 5. District Forum, by judgment dated 31.03.2021, found that right of the complainant for gratuity and pension has been denied through notice dated 01.01.2010 and the complaint was filed on 29.04.2016. Although, the complainant sent another notice under Section 80 C.P.C. dated 24.02.2015 to the opposite parties but limitation would not be extended on its basis and the complaint was time barred. When the complainant was posted at Giral Lignite (Thermal Power Project), Badmer, he gave letter for resignation from service on 12.02.2007, which was accepted by Joint Director (P & A), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Jaipur. Pension and gratuity have to be sanctioned by President & Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam, Jaipur as such District Consumer Forum Kota has no territorial jurisdiction. On these finding the complaint was dismissed. 6. The petitioner filed First Appeal No.88 of 2021, from the order of District Forum. State Commission, by its judgment dated 28.10.2021, upheld the findings of District Forum and also found that the complainant was filed for pensionery benefits as such the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ and complainant was not maintainable and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had completed 17 years continuous service and was entitled for pension under Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1988 as under Regulation-50 qualifying service period was 15 years, for pension. He was entitled for gratuity under Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpathan Nigam Limited Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 as under Rule-3, qualifying service period was 5 years, for gratuity. The pension was payable in every month as such denial of pension is a continuous wrong and cause of action was continuing cause of action as held by Rajasthan High Court in Surjaram Vs. Union of India, 2004 (1) R.L.W. 221. Supreme Court in Transport Corporation of India Vs. Veljan Hydrair Ltd. (2007) 3 SCC 142, Lata Construction Vs. Dr. Ramachandra Ramniklal Shah, AIR 2000 SC 380 and this Commission in Mr. Mohammed Rahim Khan Vs. Saudi Arabian Airlines, III (2011) CPJ 196 (NC), held that in case of continuing cause of action, the complaint cannot be dismissed as time barred. This Commission in ONGC Ltd. Vs. Research Consumer Education Society, II (2014) CPJ 102 (NC), held that a worker in semi government institution can file a consumer complaint, in respect of pension dispute. The orders of the fora below are illegal. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. The judgment of this Commission in ONGC Ltd. Vs. Research Consumer Education Society, II (2014) CPJ 102 (NC) has been challenged before Supreme Court. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, ONGC Limited Vs. Consumer Education Research Society, (2020) 2 SCC 113, finding of this Commission, on issue of maintainability of the consumer complaint by a worker in semi government institution in respect of pension dispute has not been reversed. Therefore, I propose to examine the merit of the case. 9. Rule-19 (a) and Rule-22 (a) of Rajasthan State Electricity Board Employee’s Pension Regulation, 1988 are relevant for deciding the controversy involved in this revision, which are quoted below:- Rule-19:- Resignation, Dismissal or Removal for Misconduct:- - Resignation from service or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, involving inefficiency not due to age or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service.
Rule-22:- Optional Retirement on Completion of 20 years of qualifying service:- - A Board Employee may, after giving at least 3 months previous notice in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service on the date on which he completes 20 years of qualifying service or attains age of 45 years, whichever is earlier or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice.
10. Date of birth of the complainant was 03.11.1966, date of joining in the service was 21.02.1990. As such on the date resignation on 21.02.2007, the complainant has neither completed 45 years of age nor 20 years of qualifying service as such Rule-22 is not applicable to him. He has given resignation letter dated 12.02.2007 and not a notice for retirement. On acceptance of his resignation on 21.02.2007, his past services have been forfeited under Rule-19(a) and he was neither entitled for gratuity nor for pension. The complainant submitted that he was entitled for gratuity under Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpathan Nigam Limited Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1972 as under Rule-3, qualifying service period was 5 years, for gratuity. But after forfeiture of past services, his service period has become Nil. The complaint has no merit. The orders of Fora below dismissing the complaint do not call for any interference by this Commission. O R D E R In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed. |
