C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/40
COMPLAINANT : Dipak Kumar Pal,
Acharya Lane,
College Street, Krishnagar Municipality
P.O. Krishnagar, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) The Chairman,
State Bank of India,
Corporate Centre,
State Bank Bhaban,
Madame Came Road,
Mumbai – 400 021
2) The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India, Kolkata L.H.O.
Samriddhi Bhaban, 2nd Floor,
1, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700001
3) The Asst. General Manager (Admin.)
State Bank of India, Administrative Office,
Bidhan Nagar, CIT Scheme No. VII M/16,
VIP Road, Kolkata – 700054
4) The Branch Manager
State Bank of India,
A.D.B. Radhanagar,
P.O. Ghurni, Via – Krishnagar
Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 23rd December, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took voluntary retirement in service from OPs’ State Bank of India on 31.03.01 at the age of 54 years 2 months when he was a member of the State Bank of India Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme for extending medical benefit and financial assistance to the employee members and their spouses after their retirement. The monthly contribution was Rs. 45/- which he paid upto 31.03.01. As per provision of the scheme the employees who for any reason cease to be in the service before attaining 58 years of age will be required to pay the contribution in lumpsum for the period between the date when they cease to be in the service of the bank till they attain of 58 years of age. It is also enumerated in the scheme that where the employees have sought voluntary retirement before attaining 58 years of age they be asked to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum at the time of retirement towards Welfare Fund component upto the date they attain 58 years of age. It is his specific contention that though he took voluntary retirement on 31.03.01, but at the time of retirement the bank authority did not ask him to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum as per provision of the scheme. Regarding payment of this contribution he made several correspondences with the bank authority on 14.02.02, 06.09.02 and 29.10.04, but the OPs did not allow him to make payment of the balance portion of contribution towards this scheme though in case of other two employees Sri Gajendra Lal Ghosh and Sri Tapan Kumar Guha who were allowed to deposit the balance amount of their contribution towards the scheme after their voluntary retirement. After several correspondences with the OP he received a letter from Circle Divisional Officer, Kolkata L.H.O. of the Bank dtd. 20.06.09, inter alia, stating “We acknowledge receipt of your letter dtd. 25.05.09 along with all enclosures addressed to the Chief General Manager, SBI, Bengal Circle on the captioned subject. We have taken up the matter with the concerned offices and will revert to the subject on hearing from them. Meanwhile, kindly bear with us.” But no reply was given to this complainant by the OP. Thereafter, he sent another letter to the OP on 03.02.10, the reply of which is still not received by him. So having no other alternative this case is filed by the complainant praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
On the side the OPs a written version is filed, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature and it is barred by limitation also. It is their contention that the complainant is a pensioner of State Bank of India who retired at voluntary retirement scheme on 31.03.01 at the age of 54 years 2 months. The provision of Employees Mutual Welfare Scheme which is applicable to the petitioner is that “Members who have joined the scheme w.e.f. 01.12.1982 and seek voluntary retirement before attaining 58 years of age, are required to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum at the time of retirement towards Welfare Fund component upto the date they attain 58 years of age.” In the present case the complainant did not pay the required amount at the time of retirement towards Welfare Fund, nor he took any step to do so within six months from the date of his retirement. The case of Biswanath Kundu was on a different fact from which the complainant cannot claim any benefit. As the complainant did not deposit the balance amount towards Welfare Fund at the time of his retirement or within a period of six months from the date of his retirement, so he is not entitled to get any benefit under the scheme. The complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the case barred by limitation?
Point No.3: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint along with annexed documents and the written version filed by the OPs and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for both the parties it is available on record that this complainant was an employee of State Bank of India who took voluntary retirement before attaining 60 years of age on 31st March, 2001 at the age of 54 years 2 months. It is also available on record that prior to his retirement he was a member of the State Bank of India Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme and had to pay Rs. 45/- per unit towards this scheme till his retirement and the amount was duly realised by the bank authority from his salary. It is his further case that at the time of retirement the bank authority did not ask him to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum towards Welfare Fund component upto the date of attaining 58 years of age as per rule of the scheme. After retirement he approached the bank authority by sending so many letters with a request to allow him to deposit the balance amount of contribution in a lumpsum and to avail him of the opportunity of this scheme, but his prayer was not allowed by the bank authority. In the written version it is admitted by the OP bank that he took voluntary retirement on 31.03.01 and prior to retirement he was a member of the Employees Mutual Welfare Scheme of the bank and also paid his monthly contribution of Rs. 45/- regularly. But his specific contention is that as per rule of the scheme an employee who seeks voluntary retirement scheme before attaining 58 years of age is required to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum at the time of retirement towards Welfare Fund component upto the date he attains 58 years of age. But the present complainant did not deposit the required amount in lumpsum towards Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme prior to his retirement. Even he did not apply for depositing the amount in lumpsum within 6 months since the date of his retirement. So his belated application was rightly rejected by the OP bank.
Now the question is whether the complainant is entitled to get the benefit of this scheme. It is admitted case of both the parties that the complainant took voluntary retirement scheme on 31.03.01 at the age of 54 years 2 months and prior to retirement he was a member of the bank’s Employees’ Mutual Welfare Scheme and duly deposited the component amount of Rs. 45/- per month. It is fact also that at the time of retirement the balance amount was not paid by the complainant in advance the contribution in lumsum at the time of retirement towards Welfare Fund component upto the date he attained 58 years of age. Both the parties have relied on the 'Annexure – 3’ Circular No. CHDO/P&HRD/8/2003-2004 dtd 15th May, 2003 issued by State Bank of India, Personnel & HRD Department, Local Head Office, Kolkata in which the detail provision of SBI Mutual Welfare Scheme is stated. As per rule 6.1.4.2(B)(ii) of the Welfare Scheme, it is categorically stated that “Where the employees have sought voluntary retirement before attaining 58 years of age they be asked to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum at the time of retirement towards Welfare Fund component upto the date they attain 58 years of age. Where the employees have retired after attaining 58 years of age, but before attaining 60 years of age no arrears will be required to be recovered. The medical benefits will be made available to them on attaining 58 years of age or from the date they actually retire whichever is later.” Both, the complainant and the bank authority depend on the provision of rule. This rule clearly speaks that the employee be asked to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum at the time of retirement towards Welfare Fund component upto the date he attains 58 years of age. So we find that it is the duty of the bank authority to ask an employee at the time of voluntary retirement for payment of the contribution in lumpsum towards Welfare Fund component upto the age of attaining 58 years. In the instant case there is no document on the side of the OP that he at any point of time asked the complainant to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum at the time of his retirement towards his Welfare Fund component upto the date he attains 58 years of age. From 'Annexure – 16’ a letter issued by the Branch Manager, Radhanagar to the Chief Manager (Human Resources) SBI, Administrative Office, Bidhannagar, Kolkata we find that the complainant, Sri Pal was not asked to pay the contribution in advance before his retirement under SBI VRS, and no welfare fund pass book was issued to Sri Pal as per the rule of the Scheme. This letter was issued in reply to a letter issued by the Administrative Deptt. of the Chief Manager, Bidhanagar, to the Branch Manager, SBI, Radhanagar, ADB vide letter No. (BID-0)(HR) No. 39/943 dtd. July 21, 2009. Sri Arabinda Ghosh has submitted evidence in this case as OPW – 1. Question was put to him by the complainant in which he was asked to reply whether the decision taken in the meeting of the Managing Committee held in 31.03.03 was applicable to the petitioner at which he replied in the negative. Another question was put to him whether the service condition of the State Bank employees were equally applicable to the retired employees of the Bank at which he replied in the affirmative. He also stated in reply that there was no provision to accept the required amount of the scheme after retirement but it was general practice that bank used to consider and accept the required amount within 6 months from the date of his retirement and in this case petitioner did not do so. The complainant’s specific case is that in the case of other two employees namely Gajendra Lal Ghosh and Tapan Kumar Guha the bank authority accepted their contribution in lumpsum at their prayer after their retirement. Gajendra Lal Ghosh and Tapan Kumar Guha have filed evidence-in-chief as PW – 2 & 3 respectively and both of them have categorically stated that they were allowed to pay the contribution after their retirement. 'Annexure – 9 & 10’ (letter issued by SBI to Sri Gajendra Lal Ghosh and Tapan Kumar Guha respectively, dtd. 20.06.01 and 21.04.03 prove that the bank authority allowed them to deposit the balance amount of their contribution towards the Welfare Scheme in lumpsum after their retirement. This complainant admittedly applied to the OP bank to allow him to deposit his contribution amount in lumpsum upto the attaining age of 58 years since his retirement on 14.02.02 vide 'Annexure – No. 4’. In this letter he categorically requested the bank that he wanted to continue his membership till the time of his actual retirement, so that he could get the benefit of this scheme after retirement and he also stated that he was ready to give the residual installments as one time deposit on which the bank authority issued a letter to him on 10.07.02 (Annexure – 6) stating that “Members who have joined this scheme w.e.f. on 01.12.82 and seek voluntary retirement before attaining 58 years of age are required to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum at the time of retirement towards Welfare Fund Component upto the date they attain 58 years of age.” But in this letter the bank authority neither allowed him to deposit the balance amount nor rejected his prayer. The complainant made several correspondences with the bank authority which subsequently. From 'Annexure – 16 & 17’ it is available that the Radhanagar Branch intimated the Chief Manager HR Section, Bidhannagar that the complainant was not asked to pay the contribution in advance before his retirement under SBI VRS and no Welfare fund pass book was issued to him as per the rule in this scheme. So on a careful perusal of these two letters, i.e., 'Annexure – 16 & 17’ along with 'Annexure – 3’, rule of this scheme, we find that it is crystal clear that it is the duty of the bank authority to ask the employees who have sought for voluntary retirement before attaining 58 years of age to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum at the time of retirement towards welfare fund component upto the date they attain 58 years of age. In the instant case from the documents filed by both the parties and considering the evidence of OPW 1 that the OPs did not ask the complainant to pay in advance the contribution in lumpsum towards Welfare Fund component at the time of his voluntary retirement on 31.03.01. So there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the bank undoubtedly. Besides this it is established that the bank allowed Gajendra Lal Ghosh and Tapan Kumar Guha to deposit the balance amount of their contribution towards Welfare Fund component after their retirement. But surprisingly, the complainant’s case was not considered by the OP without assigning any cogent reason. By this negligent act of this OP the complainant is deprived to have the benefit of the bank Welfare Scheme after attaining the age of 58 years.
Ld. lawyer for the OP submits that the case is barred by limitation as the complainant’s prayer was rejected by the OP bank on 10.07.02 vide letter No. 'Annexure – 6’, but in this letter we have already discussed that the OP neither allowed the prayer of the complainant nor rejected the said prayer. Even the quoted portion is not at all correct. On the other hand, from 'Annexure – 16 & 17’ we find that at the time of prayer of the complainant the Chief Manager, HR Section, Bidhannagar, SBI wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, SBI Radhanagar directing to intimate some points for taking necessary action. In reply to that letter the Branch Manager, Radhanagar categorically stated that Sri Pal was not asked to pay the contribution in advance before his retirement under SBI VRS and no Welfare Fund pass book was issued to Sri Pal as per the rule of the scheme. By a letter dtd. 20.06.09 the HR Section of SBI, Strand Road, Head office intimating the complainant regarding acknowledgement of his letter dtd. 25.05.09 and also intimated that they took up the matter with the concerned office and would revert to this subject on hearing from them and meanwhile the complainant was asked to bear with them. The complainant wrote a letter to the Chief Manager, SBI Kolkata, LHO, Strand Road on 03.02.10 and against that letter no reply was received by him. Thereafter, the case was filed by the complainant. Considering all the correspondences between the complainant and the OPs, we find that the cause of action is still going on and the case is not at all barred by limitation.
Ld. lawyer for the OP has also agitated that the complaint is not a consumer as per the provision of CP Act and in this connection the complainant has drawn our attention to a ruling from 2004 CTJ 317 (Kerala High Court) where the Hon'ble Court has decided “Consumer – Pension Board – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Are the retired employees of the cooperative societies which are members of the Pensions Scheme consumers of the service provided by the pension board? – Held, yes.” The Hon'ble court further decided, “No doubt a statutory body is constituted by the State Government yet it cannot take shelter of any statutory immunity as no such immunity having been granted to it – Therefore, a complaint against it is maintainable before a Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.”
On a careful perusal of the above cited ruling of the Hon'ble Court, we do hold that it is applicable in this instant case also and we do also hold that this complainant is a consumer under the CP Act, 1986. So this Court is quite competent to try this case and the same is maintainable also in its present form and nature.
In view of above discussions and after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for both sides it is our considered view that this complainant is a consumer under the CP Act, 1986 and he has become able to prove his case. We do also hold that there is gross deficiency in service on the side of the OP bank in not allowing the complainant to deposit the balance amount of his contribution in a lumpsum towards Welfare Fund component after his retirement. We do further hold that the complainant is entitled to get a decree as prayed for. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/40 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is allowed to deposit the residual amount towards this Welfare Fund component scheme for 46 months @ 45/- per month within a period of one month since this date. He is also allowed to get a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for mental harassment caused to him along with litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-. The OPs are directed severally or jointly to pay the decretal amount to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will accrue interest @ 10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
OPs are further directed to take deposit of the residual amount paid by the complainant in lumpsum towards Mutual Welfare Scheme for 46 months @ 45/- per month and to allow him to get all the benefits of the scheme like other members of this scheme with immediate effect, in default, the complainant is entitled to get further compensation of Rs. 1,00000/- (Rupees one lakh) only at a time.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
