Adv. For the Complainant: - B.K. Nand and Other
Adv. For O.P :- Self
Date of filing of the Case :- 01.12.2015
Date of Order :- 18.12.2015
JUDGMENT
P. Samantara, President
The complainant has come up with the present application with prayer to direct the O.Ps pay the balance G.P.F. accumulated amount of Rs 24,677/-along with interest compensation and cost of litigation which comes to Rs 44,677/- . Perused the complainant petition and documents filed by the complainant. Required fees paid. Learned Advocate for the complainant present. Heard On perusal of the complainant petition as well the documents filed, it transpires that the complainant was working as a pen under the O.Ps and during his service tenure he was subscribing some amount towards his G.P.F account maintained by the A.G. Odisha. Bhubaneswar , vide Account No . AV(O)18520. The complainant retired from Govt. Service on 31.05.2004 and thereafter A. G. Orissa , Bhubaneswar , issued final GPF Authority slip amounting to Rs 57,682/- but out of the aforesaid amount. The A.G. Orissa Bhubaneswar , issued authority slip of an amount of Rs 33,005/- Leaving a balance amount of Rs 24,677/- and since the date of superannuation the complainant is making correspondences with the authorities to get the same and his complainant result in vain, hence approached the present forum.
From the materials available in the case record. We have the only occasion to consider the question as to whether the A.G. Odisha, Bhubaneswar, has rendered any service to the complainant under the provision of the provident Fund Act, 1925 and the rules framed there under. The judgment of the supreme court in the case of Regional Provident Commissioner Vs Shiv Kumar joshi, iii(1999)CPJ36(SC) Super had been taken as reliance but the bench after consideration of the facts therein and also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of state of Orissa Vs Div. Manager LIC and Anr -(1996) 8SCC 655 held as under:-
“We hold that dispute raised by the complainants /respondents
Is not ‘consumer dispute’ and they are not ‘consumer’ and Account Generals are not running any service within the meaning of the consumer protection Act, 1986. It may also be noticed that the state Government in the exercise of its power has jurisdiction to give instruction not inconsistent with the provision of the Act and the Statutory Rules on that subject. We, therefore , allow all these revision petition and set aside the order of the District Forums and the State Commission and dismiss the Complainants’’.
In view of our aforesaid discussion and relying the ration of judgment of the Apex Court, referred above. We have no other option but to hold that the case of the complainant does not come under the purview of C.P. Act. And accordingly the same is reject being barred of jurisdiction.
Pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e the 18th day of December ’ 2015
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.K. Rath) ( P. Samantara)
Member President
