DATE OF FILING: 23.3.2011.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 15.12.2016.
Dr. N.Tuna Sahu, Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of Consumer protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short , the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievances.
2. The brief fact of the complainant’s case is that he joined as an employee under Odisha State Electricity Board (OSEB), Rayagada on 5.12.1972 as Lower Division Clerk. The said OSEB converted as Southern Electricity Supply of Odisha (SOUTHCO) Ltd on dated April 1999. The complainant retired from the service on 31.7.2005 on attaining the age of superannuation. As complained, since, the complainant after his retirement depends on his retirement benefit, so he requested the O.P. No.1 and on request the O.P.No.3 vide in his office letter No.11580 dated 15.7.2006 sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,52,031/-in favour of the complainant towards commuted value of his pension. It is also stated in the complaint that in the meantime the O.Ps adopted the Revision Pension and Family Pension of past 2006 and such benefit has been extended to the employees’/workers who have been retired within 1.4.2005 to 31.12.2005 during June 2009. It is also mentioned in the complaint that basing on the revision of Pension and Family Pension, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 3,51,080/- only towards commutation amount and since the complainant has received a sum of Rs.1,52,031/-, is entitled to receive the balance of Rs.1,99.049/-. The same was communicated to the complainant in Office Memo No. 5918 dated 17.3.2010 of O.P.No.1. Though the O.P.No.1 communicated the said sanction order on 17.3.2010 for payment of Rs.1,99,049/- but the O.P.No.2 and 3 are not making payment in spite of several requests for the last one year resulting harassment and caused mental agony to the complainant. He has also complained that despite his written request on 28.12.2010, the O.Ps did not give any heed to his grievances as a result he has filed this consumer complaint against the O.Ps with a request to direct he O.Ps to make payment of Rs.1,99,049/- only with interest @15% per annum and to pay Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental suffering and Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation in the interest of justice.
3. On receipt of notice from this Forum, the O.P.No.2 appeared in this Forum through his learned counsel Sri M.K. Mohapatra, Advocate, Berhampur, on 5.5.2011 and filed his written version on 9.12.2011. The O.P.No.1 and 3 though received the notices from this Forum but did not prefer to appear and not file their written version as a result both were declared as ex-parte on 5.1.2012 by this Forum.
4. The O.P. No.2 in his written version stated that the allegations made in the complaint are not all correct and is put to strict proof of all such allegations, which are not specifically admitted herein. It is also submitted that the complainant raised the dispute under Section -12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with a prayer to make payment of service benefits, which is not amounts to deficiency in service as defined in the said Act. It is also contended that as per the resolution of the Finance Department vide Resolution No.45391 dated 8.9.2009 issued by the Special Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Government of Odisha, it is clearly notified that employees working in any Public Sector Undertaking and Company like SOUTHCO who are retired during 1.1.2006 to 30.11.2008 are not entitled for revised commutation of fraction of pension and SOUTHCO has duly notified the matter vide its letter No.6287 dated 20.3.2010. Hence, in view of the above notification, the complainant is not entitled to receive any revised commutation of pension and the O.Ps shall have to abide by the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. There is no deficiency in service on part of this O.P, hence the Hon’ble Forum be pleased to dismiss the complaint with cost in the interest of justice.
5. On the date of hearing we heard the arguments at length from both the learned counsel for the complainant as well as for O.P. No.2. The O.P.No.1 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte since both O.P.No.1 and 3 did not prefer to contest the case as a result declared ex-parte on 5.1.2012. We have also gone through the written arguments filed by the parties and have also perused the materials on the case record.
During the course of hearing of the dispute, the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has filed the dispute claiming retirement benefits is a dispute under the provision of C.P. Act,1986 and within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant is not a State Government Employee and the resolution of Finance Department vide Resolution No.54391 dated 8.9.2009 is not applicable. It is also contended the aforesaid resolution of the Finance Department at para-6 it is not applicable for the employees who have retired from government service during the period in between 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2008, which has been admitted by O.Ps in their version as well as argument and the complainant was retired from service on 31.07.2005. The Asst. General Manager (HRD) on clear violation of Law has prohibited pensioners so retired during 01.04.2005 to 30.11.2008 which is neither lawful nor tenable. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the office letter No.6287 dated 20.3.2010 so cited by the O.Ps is a tempered document and the complainant challenges the same as illegal and unconstitutional. Nowhere in the said resolution is it specifically notified that employees working in any Public Sector Undertaking and Company like SOUTHCO retired during 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2008 are not entitled for revised commutation of sanction of Pension. It is humbly submitted that the Notification dated 20.03.2010 of O.P.No.1 is neither a document to be biased upon nor to be taken into account in view of the facts stated above. Neither the complainant is a government servant nor the O.P. No.2 is a Government establishment. The SOUTHCO is purely and completely a private company which is under lease agreement with GRIDOCO. Hence, the O.P. No.2 can’t claim the status of State Government with regard to payment of retirement benefits to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to retirement benefits as per prayer in the complaint. He has also filed a number of decisions of Hon’ble State Commission and National Commission in support of his case and contentions reported in 2009(1) CPR 164(Karnatak S.C.), 2008(1) CPR 473 (NC), 2009(3) CPR 105 ( Delhi S.C.) respectively.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 in his arguments submitted that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in law since there is no deficiency in service and the present dispute is purely a service matter which is to be decided before a separate court of law. He further submitted that as per the clarification letter of Finance Department vide No.45391 (270)/F dated 8th September 2009, it has clearly notified that employees working in any Public Sector Undertaking and Company like SOUTHCO retired during 1.1.2006 to 30.11.2008 are not entitled for revised commutation of fraction of pension and simultaneously SOUTHCO has duly notified vide No.HR/PEN-II-A-7/6287 dated 20th March 2010 where it was notified that the Pensioner so retired during 01.04.2005 to 3011.2008 are not entitled for revised commutation of a fraction of pension. So in view of the above notification, the complainant is not entitled to receive any revised commutation of fraction of pension and the O.P. No.2 shall have to abide by the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time. There is no deficiency in service on part of this O.P. and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for hence the Hon’ble Forum be please to dismiss the complaint with cost in the interest of justice.
6. We perused the pleadings of both learned counsel for complainant as well as for O.P. No.2 and have also verified Notification of Finance Department and SOUTHCO respectively. The only point to be decided by this Forum whether the present complainant is entitled for revised commutation of a fraction of his pension?
On perusal of the pleadings and verification of documents placed on the case record we find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2. On verification of the letters /Notification of Government of Odisha in the Department of Finance vide letter No.45391(270) dated 08.09.2009, it reveals that the Special Secretary to Government, Finance Department, has clarified regarding revision of Pension/Family Pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006. In the aforesaid letter vide Para-2 it has been clarified that provisional pension sanctioned in favour of a pensioner in terms of Rule 65 & 66 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 shall not be revised under Finance Department O.M. No.3667/F dated 19.01.2009 until his /her final pension is fixed in case of pensioners who have retired prior to 01.01.2006. It is further clarified in para-6 of the said letter that in accordance with the provisions of para-7 of F.D. Resolution No.3653/F dated 19.01.2009, the method for calculation of Commutation of Pension has been revised with effect from 01.12.2008. Hence, it is not applicable for the employees who have retired from Government service during the period in between 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2008. In their cases the calculation shall be based on the pre-revised pay/ pension. They are eligible to commute a portion not exceeding 1/3rd of their monthly pre-revised pension which will be calculated in accordance with the prescribed revised table of commutation value which was in force prior to 01.12.2008. Accordingly, the Asst. General Manager (HRD) SOUTHCO, Ganjam, Berhampur has also notified vide their notification No.HR/PEN-II-A-7/6287 dated 20.03.2010 where it has been mentioned that pursuant to Letter No.45391 (270)/F dated 08.09.2009 of Special Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Government of Odisha vide para-6, it is to notify that the Pensioner so retired during dated 01.04.2005 to 20.11.2008 are not entitled for revised Commutation of a fraction of pension. In the present dispute the complainant was retired from the service on 31.7.2005 which squarely comes under the said period i.e. during 01.04.2005 to 20.11.2008. From the aforementioned notifications it is clear that the previous notification of O.P.No.1 in support of the case of complainant is superseded. In view of the aforesaid notification of Finance Department and subsequently notification by SOUTHCO, the complainant is not entitled to receive any revised commutation of fraction of his pension. The citations as discussed above in support of case of complainant bear no merit since no citation can change factual matrix of a case so the case of complainant failed to derive any strength in support of his case hence rejected. In a sequel to the discussion made above and considering the notifications of Finance Department, Government of Odisha, as well as SOUTHCO, we are of the view that the present complainant is not entitled to receive any revised commutation of fraction of Pension.
7. In the result, we dismissed the case of the complainant against all O.Ps due to devoid of any merits. However, in the fact and circumstance of the dispute, we are not inclined to award any compensation or cost in this case. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.
8. The order is pronounced on this 15th day of December 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copies of this order to the parties free of cost as per rules and a copy of the order be sent to the server of
