Orissa

Rayagada

CC/63/2018

Sujan Paspureddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Officer IN Charged Electrical OPTCL - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 63 / 2018.                               Date.    24   .    01   . 2019.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                      President

Sri GadadharaSahu,                                                          Member.

Smt.PadmalayaMishra,.                                                  Member

Sri Sujan  Paspureddy, S/O: Late Salaman Pasupureddy, C/O: Sri Subash Chandra Lenka, Goutam  Nagar,   Po/  Dist: Rayagada , 765 001  (Odisha). Cell No.9439301874.                                                                                         …. Complainant.

Versus.

1. The Officer-In-Charge, OPTCL,  JSCO., Rayagada.
2. The Deputy  General Manager, Electrical, OPTCL, Jeypore,Dist:Koraput.
3. The General Manager, (F) Funds OPTCL works, Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar.
4. The Secretary, OSEB Trust, GRIDCO., Bhubaneswar.
5. The Asst.  Provident Fund Organisation, Pension & Provident fund, Berhampur.                                                     … Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:- Sri P.K.Dash, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps1 to 4:- Sri  Jagadish   Panda,  Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.5:- Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

JUDGEMENT

            The  factual matrix of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for non payment of  E.P.F. amount and other retirement benefits  to the complainant for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps 1 to 5  put in their appearance and filed written version through their learned counsel  in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P.  Hence the O.Ps prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the O.Ps   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                                        FINDINGS.

On perusal of the record we observed  it is not disputed  that the complainant was working as Sr. Line Man  under the O.P. No.1 & 2   and retired from service on Dt.31.7.1989  on completion  of  58 years  age  towards superannuation.  Further  there is  no dispute  the complainant  was E.P.F. account holder bearing  account No. 577/471.

The  main  grievance  of the complainant is that till date he has not received  E.P.F  with accrued  interest  thereon   inter alia  other retirement benefits  as admissible  after retirement from the O.Ps.  Hence  this C.C. case.

The   O.P. No.5  (EPF Commissioner), Berhampur  in their written version contended that  the  E.P.F. authority  has already transferred the EPF dues  in respect of all employees  including the complainant to  OSEB    EPF  TRUST, Bhubaneswar  on Dt. 28.3.2002.

The O.Ps. 1  to  4  in their written version  submitted  that  the complainant  was retired on Dt. 31.7.1989.  This O.P.  OPTCL was not in existence then.  The complainant was thus an employee under  an Unit/office of former OSEB and he was contributor of EPF having  account No.  OR- 577/471.  The OPTCL a Government of Odisha undertaking and the  State Transmission Utility U/S-39 of the Electricity Act, 2003 has come into play with effect from 1.4.2005. The OPTCL has adopted   certain  standard practices for its employees for routing of PF applications and sanction of the same. The complainant, who was an employee of the then OSEB, sought for settlement of PF dues  from the General Manager, Finance, funds, OPTCL after  lapse   of 30 years from the date of his  retirement  in 1989.  It is difficult for the   O.Ps 1 to 4 to trace and identify the claim of the complainant at such belated stage unless the concerned unit where the complainant last worked gives all detail about the claim of the complainant. That since this is a Dormant case   and RPFC account slips are not issued by the office  of the OPS it is submitted  that the complainant may  apply in the form “Settlement of Dormant PF account number”  through proper channel (i.e. DDO of the last  unit where he was working) of OPTCL with supporting  documents for settlement of his claim.  The DGM, EHT (O&M) Division, Jayanagar, Koraput where the  complainant claims to have worked last before his retirement, has expressed in his letters about non-availability   of  any record in his office  about the PF details of the  complainant.   The complainant may therefore furnish all his available details along with proof of  identity by way of an affidavit  duly sworn  before the concerned Executive Magistrate and make to the last DDO i.e. the DGM., EHT(O&M) Division, Jayanagar, Koraput with  appropriate  application requesting the said DDO to onward  submit those documents to the OSEB EPF Trust Fund  for taking further action  to settle the EPF dues of the complainant.

For better appreciation this forum relied citation which are mentioned here.

It is held and reported in Current Consumer Case 2004 page No.27 where in  the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  observed  the redressal mechanism  established  under the Act is “not supposed to supplant but to supplement the existing judicial system”. It is well settled  principle of law that the statutory authority   should act under the provisions of the relevant statue and if they do  not   act accordingly, the Consumer Forum  have the jurisdiction because  not acting under the provisions of the statute/Act it amounts to deficiency   of service.

            Further  It is observed in this  case   due to financial crunch the  complainant has no other  option then to approach this forum for redressal of their grievance  in the age of   90 years..

            That for failure to act properly  by the O.Ps. the complainant should not be deprived of his legitmate entitlement, it is to  be ensured   that the benefit to which an investor   is eligible after due date are entitled enjoy it and it should not became a distant dream.

This forum completely agreed with the  views taken  by the O.Ps  1 to 4 in their written version and the complainant is entitled for EPF and other retirement  benefits as admissible.

Hence to meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

                                                           

 

                                                                        ORDER.

In the resultant the complaint petition  stands allowed against the  O.Ps 1 to 4 and dismissed  against the O.P. No.5 (EPF).

The complainant is directed to furnish all his available details along with proof of  identity by way of an affidavit  duly sworn  before the concerned Executive Magistrate and make to the last DDO i.e. the DGM., EHT(O&M) Division, Jayanagar, Jeypore, Koraput with  appropriate  application requesting the said DDO to onward  submit those documents to the OSEB EPF Trust Fund  to settle the EPF dues  with in  a week.

The O.P. No.2 The  Deputy  General Manager, Electrical, OPTCL, Jeypore, Dist:Koraput  is directed to forward the  affidavit of the complainant  to the OSEB EPF Trust Fund  to settle the EPF dues  with in  a week  after receipt of the  same from the complainant.

The  O.P. No. 4    (OSEB EPF Trust Fund )  is directed to pay the  EPF amount with accrued interest thereon   bearing  EPF account No. 577/471  inter alia  other retirement  benefits  as admissible within  60 days   after receipt of the  documents   from the O.Ps.

The O.Ps 1 to 4 are directed to  compliance of the above  said order  be done within  60 days  of the receipt of this order.

Copy of this order  be sent to the parties free of cost as per rule. 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this           24 ^th. day of   January, 2019.

 

 

MEMBER.                                            MEMBER.                                            PRESIDENT