Surinder Kumar Mittal, H.No. 306, Sector 12, Panchkula.

…… Revision-Petitioner /complainant

V e r s u s

The State of

1.     The Chief Secretary to the Government of

2.     The Director, Employment, Haryana, SCO

....Respondents/ Opposite Parties

3.    Appropriate Editor, if and as required by SGH, as Proforma Party

BEFORE:

Argued by:Sh.Surinder Kumar, Mittal, Revision-Petitioner, in person.

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

2.                  

3.              304  of 2012, before the District Forum, which were dismissed, on the ground, that the same were not maintainable, as the complainant did not fall within the definition of a Consumer and, as such, this complaint was also  liable to be dismissed, on the same ground. It was admitted that the complainant was a permanent employee of the State of Haryana, and served from 14.01.1977 to 20.04.2003, when he was compulsorily retired, at the age of 50 years, vide order Annex. R-I. It was stated that the said order had been challenged and was pending adjudication, before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was denied that there were any contractual obligations, between the Government of Haryana and the complainant. It was further stated that the Government of Haryana, had issued a Notification, under Article 309 of the Constitution of India dated 07.12.2001, vide which, Rule 6.19(c), in Clause (i) was amended, which now reads as, “The term “emoluments” for these purposes shall mean “pay” as defined in Rule 2.44 (a) (I) of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume I, Part-I”. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid amendment in Rule 2.44 (a), only Sub-Clause (i) was applicable and rest of the Sub-Clauses viz; (ii) and (iii), were excluded.  It was further stated that, this Notification had not been referred to, by the Hon’ble High Court, while deciding CWP No. 8058 of 2009. It was further stated that, in view of the aforesaid Notification, read with Rule 6.19(c) Clause (i) CSR Volume II and Rule 2.44(a)(i) of CSR Volume I, personal pay was not admissible, in determining the retiral benefits of the complainant. It was also admitted that, as per the Scheme of 1981, in respect of the family planning, special increment was to be counted, as personal pay and rate of personal pay was to be the next increment. It was denied that personal pay was payable, while deciding the retiral benefits. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.             

5.             

6.             

7.             

8.             

9.              

10.              After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, raised by the Revision- Petitioner/complainant 

11.           As per the provisions of the Act, the Revision Petition could be filed within 90 days,  from the date of receipt of the order of the District Forum, if any, before the appropriate Fora, and if the same could  not be filed, within the said prescribed period, an application for condonation of delay, was required to be moved by the applicant/Revision-Petitioner. In the instant case, as per the report of the office of this Commission, there is a delay of 33 days, in filing the Revision-Petition. Irrespective of the fact, as to whether, the instant Revision Petition was maintainable, before this Commission or not, the Revision-Petitioner did not move any application, for condonation of delay of 33 days, in filing the same (Revision Petition). In these circumstances, it could be very well said that there was complete inaction and lack of bonafides, on the part of the Revision-Petitioner, in not filing the Revision-Petition, within 90 days. In the absence of any application, having been moved by the Revision Petitioner, giving sufficient cause, for delay of 33 days, in filing the Revision Petition, the same (Revision Petition) is liable to be dismissed being barred by time. 

12.          dated 03.03.2014, being not maintainable. Instead of challenging that order before the National Commission, the Revision Petitioner has ventured to file this Second Revision Petition against that very order. So the second Revision   

13.          dated 03.03.2014, referred to above, passed by this Commission. The remedy which lay with the Revision Petitioner was to file a Revision Petition against the dated 03.03.2014, referred to above, is also not maintainable before this Commission.

14.          Even Otherwise also, this Commission has no jurisdiction, to review/revise its own orders, in view of the principle of law, laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar and Anr., IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC).

15.          

16.          

17.          

18.          

Pronounced.

09.05.2014  

         [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.]

                                                                                                                                                                                                   [DEV RAJ]

                                                                                               ^Sd/-

^{[PADMA PANDEY]}

^MEMBER

cmg