Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/48

Smt. P.Susilamma, W/o: Late P.Mariya joshi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bamk of India - Opp.Party(s)

Self

14 Jul 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 48 / 2015.                                              Date.   19      .     7  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri  GadadharaSahu,                                             Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Smt. P.Susilamma, W/O: Late  P.Mariya  Joshi,  AT: Near Near D.M.Church, Indira Nagar, 3^rd. lane,   Po/ Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha)                              …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main  Branch,  Rayagada

2.The Regional Manager/ Zonal  Manager, State bank of India, Berhampur(Gm).

3. The District  Treasury  Officer, Rayagada.             .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps 1 & 2  :- Sri N.K.Das, & Sri P.Ch.Das, Advocates, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.3:- In person.

JUDGMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non entry of  pension  sanctioned amount in the S.B. account No. 10734939350  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed the O.Ps no.1 & 2  appeared through their learned counsels and filed written version refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps No. 1 & 2  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps No. 1 & 2 . Hence the O.Ps 1 & 2  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

The O.P. No.3 filed written version and submitted that the complainant  holder   of PPONo. 11228 S(F)(A.P.) was getting her  family pension from the District Treasury, Rayagada  upto 31.5.2005 and after wards her  PPO has been transferred  to PSB i.e. Branch Manager, ADB Bank, Rayagada  through  SBI, SBI, Main Branch, Rayagada  vide  Treasury office  Lr. No. 2323 DT. 23.6.2005 basing upon  her option.  Since than  she is getting her pension benefits through the above said P.S.B.

Further the O.P. No.3 in their written version submitted that  the O.P. No.3 has no role with the allegation and has  not communicated  the pass orders for drawal of the amount of Rs. 62,029/- in  favour of the complainant by this Treasury or any payment of the said sum  made on 26.2.2014 by the SBI of India, Rayagada.  Nevertheless, the aforesaid  amount has been incorporated in to the state  account   vide   T.V. No. 2701-2, Dt. 26.2.2014 under the  head of account  8793-00-127according to the  paid voucher submitted by  the concerned  bank with  reference  to SOP available  in this office . Therefore O.P. No.1  being the pension disbursement authority in respect of the complainant is only answerable about the   aforesaid amount.  The O.P. No.3 prays  the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

  Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.Ps and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                         FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the complainant  was  retired employee of   Govt. of Andhra Pradesh. Again  there is  no dispute  the complainant  holder   of PPO  No. 11228 S(F)(A.P.) was getting her  family pension from the District Treasury, Rayagada  up to 31.5.2005 and after wards her  PPO has been transferred  to PSB i.e. Branch Manager, ADB Bank, Rayagada  through  SBI, SBI, Main Branch, Rayagada  vide  Treasury office  Lr. No. 2323 DT. 23.6.2005 basing upon  her option.  Since than  she is getting her pension benefits through the above said P.S.B.

The O.P. No.1 & 2  in their written version para No. 2  submitted that  till  31.5.2015 the complainant was getting her pension from the  District Treasury. There after  her PPO has been transferred to B.M., SBI(ADB), Rayagada through  the S.B.I., Main Branch, Rayagada as per her option and since then, she has been taking  her pension from the said  S.B.I (ADB),Rayagada. The mention in the petition that the Chief Manager, SBI., Rayagada is the pension disbursement authority is not correct.

The O.P. No.1 & 2  in their written version para No. 3  submitted that  the complainant had  moved the Grievance cell of the Collector, Rayagada for recovery of old due of Rs.62,029/- making a complaint against  the SBI(ADB), Rayagada.  The SBI(ADB),Rayagada has taken the position that it is not concern with the  said arrears, which are prior to 1.1.2014.  The complainant was employee of Andhra Govt.  and she had retired  there. For the said claim amounts mentioned in  the petition, It is the   State Govt.  of Andhra Pradesh is the sanctioning authority , where after only the payment cana be made by the SBI, (ADB), Rayagada. In this connection the clarification made by the  centralized pension processing centre of the SBI, Bhubaneswar Dt. 23.9.2014 addressed to the Branch Manager, SBI(ADB), Rayagada. So the  complainant would move  the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh for getting necessary sanction of the arrear   dues mentioned in the complaint petition and the SBI, (ADB) Branch has informed the same to the complainant on her approach there.

This forum completely agreed with the views  mentioned in their written version   by the O.Ps inter alia  documents relied  in support of  the present case in hand.

Hence to meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

                                      ORDER.

In  resultant the complaint stands dismissed on contest.

The complainant is directed to make correspondence with the  appropriate authority of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh for sanction of  outstanding  pension amount  and further  directed to contact  the Branch Manager, SBI, (ADB), Rayagada  to  know the  status of the S.B. account.

Accordingly the case is disposed off. There is  no order towards cost and compensation.

Dictated and corrected by me.       Pronounced in the open forum on         19th.  day  of    July, 2018.

 

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                                                                              PRESIDENT