Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/859/2014

Bal Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical EDucation & Research (PGIMER) - Opp.Party(s)

O.P.Batra

27 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/859/2014
Date of Institution	:	29/12/2014
Date of Decision	:	27/07/2015

 

Bal Krishan, Work Attendant Grade-III (Retired), Silver City Extension, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Sector 12, U.T., Chandigarh.

2.     Account Officer (GPF) Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Sector 12, UT, Chandigarh.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

                       

For complainant	:	Sh. O.P. Batra, Advocate
For OPs	:	Ms. Nimrata Shergill, Advocate.

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Bal Krishan, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER) and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that he was appointed as a daily wage worker as helper on work charge (regular) basis in the Central Pay Scale of Rs.2550-55-3200 plus usual allowances admissible to the Central Govt. employees stationed at Chandigarh w.e.f. 6.11.1998. The complainant was further re-designated as a Work Attendant Grade-III w.e.f. 3.10.2000. 

                According to the complainant, it is mandatory for the department to deduct provident fund of the employees, but, the concerned clerk, Mr. Yashpal did not deduct the minimum provident fund of Rs.1,000/- even upto 31.3.2009 despite requests by him. The complainant retired on 31.10.2012 and the provident fund of Rs.1,21,903/- was due as per the statement of the accounts officer, but he was released cheque of Rs.1,17,821/- only and an amount of Rs.4,082/- was paid less, which was not released despite requests made by him. The complainant has contended that as per the provisions of the Provident Fund Act, it was mandatory to deduct the provident fund of the employees w.e.f. the date of joining, but, the same was not done w.e.f. 6.11.1998 till 31.3.2009, therefore, he is entitled to interest amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-. The complainant sent a registered legal notice dated 26.3.2014 to the OPs for releasing the amounts, but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.         In their joint written statement, OPs have taken the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and as per notification dated 31.10.2008, any service dispute is to be adjudicated by the Central Administrative Tribunal; that the complaint is barred by limitation. It has been averred that the services of the complainant were regularized w.e.f. 6.11.1998 as helper on work charge regular basis  vide office order dated 23.10.2006 and he was re-designated as Work attendant GD-III w.e.f. 3.10.2000. It has been stated that the deduction of GPF was made from April 2009 onwards and warning has already been issued to Sh. Yash Pal, Clerk for this lapse. It has been contended that as per rule 8(b) of GPF (CS) Rules, an amount of not less than 6% of emoluments of the official was to be deducted from the salary of the official after completion of one year service.  It has been pleaded that the statement reflecting the balance of Rs.1,21,903/- included interest upto 31^st March 2013.  However, since the official retired in October 2012, therefore, interest was allowed upto October 2012 and the payment of Rs.1,17,821/- was correctly made. It has been contended that the as per available record, the complainant has drawn full salary from November 1998 to 31.3.2009 and since the amount to be deducted from his salary for the said period had been utilized by him, there is no monetary loss on account of interest.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated his own. It has been contended that the OPs have admitted that the deduction was not made due to the fault of the clerk, therefore, the complainant is entitled for the interest.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant. 
6.         It is the admitted case of the OPs that the services of the complainant, Sh. Bal Krishan were regularized with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f 6.11.1998 as helper on work charge regular basis vide office order No.PGI/Engg/SHE/ 7348-52 dated 23.10.2006 (Annexure C-4). It is also admitted that no amount of GPF was deducted from the salary of the complainant from October 2006 to March 2009.  However, the deductions of the GPF were made from the salary from April 2009 onwards.  The complainant retired in October, 2012. At the time of retirement, payment to the tune of Rs.1,17,821/- including interest relating to GPF was made to him by the OPs.  However, the complainant in this consumer complaint has made a prayer for release of the interest amount w.e.f. 6.11.1998 to 31.3.2009 amounting to Rs.4,50,000/-.
7.         In the first place, we find that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Director Health Services, Haryana & Ors., (2013) 10 SCC 136, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the case of a medical officer, who retired from service and claimed that he was not paid all his health benefits. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paras 20 & 21 of the judgment held as under :-

“20.  In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a government servant raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the forum under the Act.  The government servant does not fall under the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1))(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum for redressal of any of his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or the civil court but certainly not a forum under the Act.

21.   In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits.”

In the instant case, the complainant is claiming interest on his GPF amount for which no deductions were made and in view of the law laid down in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. Vs. Director Health Services, Haryana & Ors. (supra), he is not covered within the definition of a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

8.         Secondly, the complaint of the complainant is also barred by limitation because he retired in October, 2012 and the payment of an amount of Rs.1,17,821/- towards GPF, including interest upto October 2012 was also made to him. The complainant filed the present complaint on 29.12.2014 i.e. beyond two years of accrual of cause of action.  Hence, the present complaint is patently barred by limitation.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal or the civil court of competent jurisdiction for the redressal of his grievances.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
27/07/2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President