Orissa

Debagarh

CC/28/2017

Ashalata Nag, aged about 65 years, W/O-Late Kishore Ch. Nag - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Principal Accountant General (A&E) - Opp.Party(s)

13 Dec 2018

ORDER

 

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

C.C. NO-28/2017

Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan,

Member (W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Ashalata Nag, aged about 65 years,

W/O- Late Kishore Chandra Nag,

At/P.O-Purunagarh, Dist- Deogarh.                                                                                                                                                                           …         Complainant.

                                       Vrs.

 

1. The Principal Accountant General (A & E),

         Odisha Bhubaneswar.

 

2. The Conservator of Forest,

           Kenduleaf Circle,Sambalpur.

 

3. The Divisional Forest Officer(Afforestation),

         Rourkela Forest Division,

         District- Sundargarh.

 

4. The District Treasury Officer,

        Deogarh Treasury,

        At/PO/PS/Dist-Deogarh

 

 

For the Complainant        : -        Nemo

For the Opp.Party-1          :-        None

For the Opp.Party-2         :-         Mr. T.K.Khadia(Authorised Person)

For the Opp.Party-3         :-         Mr. P.K.Mahapatra(Authorised Person)

For the Opp.Party-4         :-         Mr. B.Sahu.Authorised Person)

      

            DATE OF HEARING: Dt. 24.04.2018, DATE OF ORDER: Dt. 13.12.2018.

Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President:-Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is the widow of Late Kishore Chandra Nag, who was serving as the Head Clerk in the office of the O.P-3 retired on superannuation on dtd. 31.07.1995 as per O.C.S Pension Rules-1992. When the husband of the Complainant was expired on dt. 20.03.2000 before finalization of Pension Paper, the complainant was sanctioned Family Pension but at lower scale as that of a Forest Guard for the reason that the post of her husband was wrongly mentioned as Forest Guard in place of Head Clerk. The contention of the Complainant is that as he (Lt. K.C. Nag) was holding a post of Head Clerk, the pension should be raised to higher amount from the date of introduction of higher scale for the post .But after several correspondence made by the Complainant, the error was corrected in the pension book by the concerned authority in red ink and was communicated to the Principal Accountant General (A&E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar from D.F.O, Rourkela Forest Division. But till the filling of this complaint before this Forum the Pension amount is not revised as per the actual rank of her husband for the payment of arrear of Enhanced Pension. and the Complainant is still drawing pension every month, but that of a Forest Guard and not as Head Clerk. The Complainant claims that the O.Ps has committed deficiency in service as they did not bother to pay the actual Family Pension and revised pension amount to the Complainant.

 But as per the O.P-2 the Conservator of Forest has already sanctioned the Provisional Pension of Sri Nag who retired as Head Clerk on dtd. 10.06.1997 (copy enclosed) and earlier he has sent to the O.P-1 on dtd on dtd. 10.09.1997 along with related documents .He has produced the pension payment order sanctioned by the O.P-1 in favour of the complainant forwarded by the Conservator of Forest to the O.P-2.So he denied having any role in the correction of the Pension book.

According to the O.P-3 Sri Nag was serving as a Head Clerk whose pension papers has been submitted to the O.P-2 on dtd 13.12.1996 soon after receiving the pension paper from the C.C.F, Sambalpur and sent the same to the O.P-1. Later on the O.P-3 has sent a letter to the O.P-1 for recalculation, enclosing all the copies of letters.

 Again from the O.P-4 it is clear that he is not the pension sanctioning authority and has no power of enhancing the pension amount. But the O.P-4 could not be able to file the original copy of Pension Payment Order received by him against which the pension is being disbursed.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.P has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?      

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.Ps according to Sec-2 (i) (o) of C.P Act-1986, because he has been receiving monthly pension (Family Pension) against the service rendered by her husband who was worked and retired from the office of the O.P-2. After retirement of Lt. Kishore Chandra Nag who was the husband of the Complainant, the O.P-2 has performed his part of duty and sanctioned the provisional pension of Lt. Kishore Chandra Nag, as Head Clerk on dtd 10.06.1997 and sent to O.P-1, forwarded by Conservator of Forest .Also the O.P-3 being the appointing authority has sent the same to the O.P 1 on dtd. 12.06.1997 after receiving the same from O.P-2 and even after death of K.C Nag, sanctioned the family pension as the rank of Head clerk, in favour of the Complainant vide PPO NO-35184(F) issued by the O.P-1. But the O.P-4 while preparing the pension book made a mistake by writing the post of Lt K.C Nag as Forest Guard instead of Head Clerk. After a complaint lodged by the Complainant in this regard the O.P-4 has rectified the mistake on dtd 16.05.2001 vide letter no-PR 769/2000-2001.Again in spite direction given by this Forum, the O.P-4, could not be able to show the Original Pension Payment Order sanctioned by O.P-1 from which it could be ascertained that on whose part the mistake has done. But as the copy submitted by the O.P-2 is not legible and does not contain any information regarding the post of Lt. K.C. Nag for which it creates a doubt on the appropriateness of the pension sanction order by the O.P-1. After receiving the notice from this Forum the O.P-1 remained silent and neglected to provide material facts relating this case. As Lt K.C Nag was working and retired as Head clerk, the pension book must contain the correct post of Lt. K.C. Nag from the beginning of payment of pension. The mistake was presumed to be done at the time of preparation of pension book at the hand of O.P-4 and even after rectification on dtd. 16.05.2001 in the PPO(Pension Payment Order), still the Complainant  is receiving less pension due to negligence of the O.P-1 & O.P-4.They have jointly committed “Deficiency in service” U/S- 2(1)(g) according to Consumer Protection Act-1986 for which the Complainant is deprived of getting actual amount of pension for which she deserves to get. Hence they will be penalized as per the Order given below:-

                                                                    ORDER              

The Complaint petition is allowed and the O.P-1 & 4 are directed to make recalculation and re-fixation of the Family pension and reimburse the actual pension to the Complainant according to post of Lt. K.C. Nag (husband of the Complainant) since the day of retirement along with all arrears, dues up to date lying pending with the O.P-1 & 4, which she should receive against the service of her deceased husband with interest. Further the O.P-1 & 4 are jointly & severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards Compensation,Rs.10,000/-towards mental agony & pain and Rs. 10,000/-towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days of receiving this order, failing which the O.Ps shall pay 9% interest on the above amount till the day of actual payment to the Complainant.

 

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

 

Order is pronounced in the open Court today i.e 13^th day of December 2018 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

 

 

           I agree,                               I agree,

                       

 

        MEMBER (W)                     MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

 

Dictated & Corrected by me.
 

        PRESIDENT