Orissa

Rayagada

CC/137/2015

Sri Tatavarthi Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

The C.D.M.O, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                           C.C. Case  No.137 / 2015

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                               President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member

Sri  Tatavarthi Prasad, S/o late T.Surya Rao, Rait Colony, Rayagada, Odisha.                                                                                                                      ….….Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. C.D.M.O, Rayagada.
2. Medical Officer, CHC, Jemadeipentho, Dist. Rayagada, Odisha.
3. District Treasury Officer, Rayagada, Po/Dist, Rayagada, Odisha.
4. The Director of Public Health Service, Bhubaneswar, Po:Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda, Odisha.                                                                                …..…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant:  In Person.

For the O.P 1 & 4 : Self

For the O.P 3: Self

For the O.p  2 : Exparte                                JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that the complainant  was working as MPHS at CHC, Jemadeipentho in the district of Rayagada and  retired from service on 30.06.2012  and settled the claims of the complainant after two years of retirement.  It is  stated by the Opp.Party  that  the complainant  has drawn  an  excess amount of  Rs.17,359/-   and  advised   the complainant to deposit the said amount and accordingly the complainant deposited the said amount vide Challan  No.327 dt.27.05.2013. Later the opposite parties issued the revised pay order dt.28.10.2013  to the complainant   and on the basis of the revised order   it was seen that the said amount deposited by the complainant was actually due to the complainant but not paid excess as such the opposite parties  have  sent necessary approvals for payment of Rs.17,359/-  to the complainant on dt.07.01.2015 vide Bill No.133 but the complainant has not received  the amount till date. The complainant approached several times to the opposite parties and requested for  repayment of the said amount  but the opposite parties were not responding and kept quite. Hence, prayed  to direct the O.ps for payment of Rs.17,359/-  with bank rate of interest  and such other relief as the forum deems fit and proper. Hence, this complaint.

                        Being noticed, the O.p 1,3 & 4     appeared and filed their  written version. The O.P  neither appeared not filed written version as such O.p  2 was set exparte. It is submitted by the O.p 1 & 4 that  the complainant is a retired govt. employee and   as per ORSP Rule,2008 the pay structure of the complainant was aRs.5200-20200/-GP R.2400/- and subsequently the pay structure of the complainant has been revised to PB(2) Rs.9300-34,800/- GP Rs.4200/- vide Finance Department Resolution No.28999/F and  in light of the above instructions of the pay of the complainant was fixed under Rule 13 of ORST Rule 2008 vide order No.3370 dt.26.09.2011 of O.P No.1.  Subsequently, the complainant  has  retired from  service  on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 30.06.2012 and the pension papers as required under Rules had been submitted  to the O.p 4 being the appointing authority but the O.p 4 returned the service book for refixation of pay in accordance with the H & FW Department letter No.28663/H dt.06.11.2012  i.e. without addition of an additional increment as Rule 13 of ORSP Rule 2008  is not applicable in this case. Accordingly the pay had been re-fixed  and ordered to recover the excess amount drawn from 31.03.2010  to 30.06.2012 and the revised pension papers again submitted to O.p 4  after deposit of excess drawl amount of aRs.17,359/- by the complainant. In the mean time the Government in Health and FW Department had issued another instruction that the pay of the complainant to be fixed under Rule 13(1) of ORSP Rule  i.e. one increment is to be added in the existing pay at the time of fixation of pay. As such the O.p 4 again returned the service book and pension papers to re-fix the pay  and again re-fixed the pay and final pension papers along with service book sent to the O.p 4 for sanction a and onward transmission to Ag(A&E)  for issue of authorization. Accordingly the pension was sanctioned basing on the revised pay by AG, Odisha and regular payments are being made to the complainant through treasury/Bank.  After sanction of final pension the O.p 2 has submitted a bill at Dist. Treasury, Rayagada – O.p 3 for release of deposited amount by Challan but the O.p; 3  objected the bill on the ground of requirement of sanction order.  In this regard, the O.P 1 has already issued direction to the O.P 2  to submit proposals after fulfilment of  the required procedures to move the government for issue of necessary sanction order and in response to the direction of the O.P 1, the O.P 2 has moved the higher quarter for immediate sanction and on receipt of sanction of  govt.  the deposited amount will be drawn and paid by transfer   to the SB account of the complainant.    

                        It is further submitted by O.P 1 & 4 that the complainant is a retired state government employee and the mater relates to service matter and the Opp.Parties are state government officers as such neither the complainant is a consumer nor the Opp.Parties are service providers  as defined in the Consumer Protection Act,m1986. In view of the above it is prayed   to consider the facts  and dismiss the consumer case being devoid of merit.

                        The O.p No.3 submitted that  the O.p  2 has presented the bill  amounting  to Rs.17,359/- which is  a refund claim  without any supported sanction order of the competent authority on 09.01.2015 as such the said claim has been returned back  and the O.p 2  has not yet resubmitted the bill duly complied  the objection  as made earlier by this office. So the delay occurred at the level of O.P 2  completely even after lapse of one year.   Hence, making harassment as well as delay in payment to the complainant  by this office does not arise. However on resubmission of the bill duly complied with affixing sanction order from the competent authority  the claim shall be passed by this office. Hence, prayed  to dismiss the complaint against  the O.p 3 .

                        We perused the written version and heard the complainant and O.p No.2.  The complainant has also  filed a memo stating there in that the Opp.Party has paid an amount of Rs.17,359/- in his SBI Account  and he is fully satisfied  and does not want to proceed further . Since the matter is settled  and the complainant has filed  the memo and prayed not to proceed further, we do not feel it necessary to go into the merit of the case and in view of the memo filed by the complainant the matter is  hereby closed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this 4^th day of October,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                        A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

                 Member                                                                                          President