DATE OF FILING: 23.11.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 25.04.2018.
EXTRACT COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.04.2018.
Heard the petition dated 11.05.2017 filed by the O.P.No.1 challenging the maintainability of the complaint petition of the complainant as well as the counter filed by the complainant dated 28.08.2017 from the Advocates of both the parties on 10.04.2018.
The Advocate for O.P. No.1 submitted that the complainant Smt. Droupadi Naik is not the wife of the ex-employee late Bauri Naik and as per the service record Bauri Naik S/O Ganga Nayak was the employee and Smt. Kamala Nayak is the wife of deceased Bauri Nayak and they have blessed with three children as per the official Service Book.
Further, it is also submitted by the advocate for O.P.No.1 that O.P.No.1, Eastern Coal Field Limited is a Government of India Company and subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 who is carrying on business on mining and govern under the Mines Act, 1952 as such this case does not come within the scope and ambit of the definition of the consumer as defined under Section 2(1)) d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such Government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service condition and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The advocate for O.P. has also filed citations in this regard.
The advocate for the complainant submitted that the present complainant is the wife of late Bauri Nayak who was the employee of O.P.No.1. Though the present complainant is the 2nd wife of late Bauri Nayak but after death of Bauri Nayak’s first wife she and three children are the legal heir of late Bauri Nayak and to that effect. She has obtained legal heir certificate from the concerned Tahasildar and also it is filed. The O.P.No.1 has filed this petition only to linger the proceeding and to mislead and misguide the Hon’ble Forum. Hence the petition of O.P.No.1 needs to be dismissed. The complainant in support of his submission has also filed citation.
After perusal of the record, scrutiny of documents and materials on record it reveals that the present complainant being the wife of the ex-employee late Bauri Nayak has filed this case for getting pension and pensionary benefits which are retrial benefits.
Law is well settled in case of Dr. Janmitar Sain Bhagat versus Director, Health Services, Haryana AIR 2013 Supreme Court 3060 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “By no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any disputes 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 grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.”
On foregoing discussion and after observation of the aforesaid citation, we hold that this case is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. Hence the O.P.No.1’s petition is allowed and the complainant’s complaint stands dismissed. The complainant is at liberty to file her case in any other Forum having competent jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance and she may avail the benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in the best interest of justice.
Extract copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
