BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.425 of 2011/22/2015

Date of Instt. 3.10.2011/23.1.2015

Date of Decision :06.02.2015

Raj Kumar Arora, Chief Manager(Retd.), G.929, Mohalla Gobindgarh, Jalandhar City, Punjab-144001.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Chairman-cum-CMD State Bank of India, Central Office, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

2. CGM, State Bank of India, Chandigarh Circle, Section 175, Chandigarh.

3. AGM, State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Dholewala Chowk, Ludhiana.

4. AGM State Bank of India, (Agent of Principal Notice No.1), Civil Lines Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.Sandesh Kumar Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.AK Arora Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that he was in service of State Bank of India since 16.12.1967. That one day prior to retirement on 29.6.2006 vide letter No.NR/SA 438 dated 29.6.2006 without any show cause notice the Human Resource Section of SBI ZO, Ludhiana(Pb) opposite party No.3 intimated the complainant that some disciplinary proceedings are pending against him and the bank in exercise of power in terms of rule 19(3) of SBI Officers, Service Rules, has authorized the continuance and conclusion and disciplinary proceedings against him and accordingly he will be deemed to be in bank service even after his retirement from service on 30.6.2006. Due to the above order of SBI authorities, no retiral benefits were made available to the complainant on the retirement date 30.6.2006 and all of them were withheld at the discretion SBI authority. The opposite parties No.1 to 3 kept the case pending intentionally to harass the complainant from 1.7.2006 to 26.2.2008 for 20 months and to the utmost surprise of the complainant, he has never been involved in any proceedings during this period of 20 months whereas the enquiry was against him only and he had been booked under Rule 19(3) of SBI OS Rules and is deemed to be in service even after retirement for this purpose only. Thereafter on dated 26.2.2008 vide letter No.DPD/2007/983 the General Manager(Disciplinary Authority) SBI intimated the complainant that he has decided not to take any further action or impose any penalty and treated the matter as closed. The opposite parties released the payment of bank contribution of the provident fund on 22.4.2008, payment of personal contribution to provident fund on 17.7.2006 and 29.9.2006 and payment of gratuity on 21.4.2008 mentioned in detail in para No.6 of the complaint. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of 1.7.2006 on the delayed payment of provident fund and gratuity. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written replies. In a separate written reply, opposite parties No.1 to 3 took up preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction etc. On merit, they pleaded that the complainant is not entitled to any interest @ 18% as demanded by him. They pleaded that withholding of the benefits to the complainant is a matter of record. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In a separate written reply, opposite party No.4 also took preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction etc and on merits, it denied the averments contained in the complaint.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and closed evidence.

6. After going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the complaint was dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 2.4.2012 on the ground of limitation etc. However, in appeal, the Hon'ble State Commission held the cause of action to be continuing one since the rate of interest was paid less from the actual rate of 8.50% and remanded back the case to this Forum for deciding the complaint on merits.

7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsel for the both the parties.

8. The complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay 18% interest per annum from 1.7.2006 on the delayed payment of provident fund contributed by him personally and on contribution by the bank to the provident fund and further interest on the delayed payment of gratuity as per directions of Hon'ble Apex Court and not as the interest @ 6% and 7.25% per annum given by the opposite parties. The complainant has also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses. In its order, the Hon'ble State Commission has observed that rate of interest payable for the employee provident fund for the year 2006 to 2008 was @ 8.5% per annum and the complainant was paid lesser rate @ 7.25% per annum on its retirement benefits which were duly payable on 30.6.2006. The complainant was to retire on 30.6.2006 but one day prior to retirement date i.e 29.6.2006, a show cause notice was issued to him regarding some disciplinary proceedings pending against him and due to above said order the SBI authorities did not pay retiral benefits to him on the retirement date and same were withheld and were paid subsequently with interest @ 7.25% per annum and 6% per annum. The complainant has prayed for enhanced rate of interest w.e.f 1.7.2006 on the delayed payment of provident fund and on the delayed payment of gratuity only besides compensation and litigation expenses. The Hon'ble State Commission while remanding the case in its order has already observed that interest @ 8.5% per annum was payable on provident fund and the complainant was paid lesser interest @ 7.25% per annum on retirement benefits. So in our opinion, the complainant is entitled to interest @ 8.5% per annum on the delayed payment of provident fund and gratuity w.e.f. 1.7.2006 till the date when the payment of these benefits was made to him. No action was taken against the complainant and complainant was intimated vide letter dated 26.2.2008 that disciplinary authority has decided not to take any further action or impose any penalty and treated the matter as closed. So withholding of retiral benefits i.e provident fund and gratuity to the complainant on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and then dropping the same without taking any action against the complainant and further making delayed payment of provident fund which was contributed by the complainant constitute deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank for which the complainant is entitled to compensation.

9. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is accepted and opposite parties No.1 to 3 are directed to pay interest @ 8.50% per annum on the amount of provident fund and gratuity from the date of 1.7.2006 till the date when the payment of above said benefits was made to him. The interest on provident fund and gratuity already paid by the opposite party bank shall be adjusted against the interest calculated @ 8.50% per annum on the above said delayed payments. The complainant is further awarded Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.3000/- on account of litigation expenses. The entire payment be made to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which opposite parties No.1 to 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum after expiry of said period of one month till the date of actual payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

06.02.2015 Member President