Orissa

Rayagada

CC/15/95

Sri Radharaman Padhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Tahasildar, Gunupur, - Opp.Party(s)

self

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                                                C.C. Case  No.95/ 2015.

P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.                                      Member

Sro Radjaraman Padhi, S/olate Gariram Padhi, Goudo Dhepa Sahi, Gudari,Po/Ps Gudari, Dist. Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                              …..……Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

1. Tahasildar, Gunupur.
2. Endowment Commissioner, Berhampur..

                                                                                                                     ……...Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant: In Person

For O.P 1: Sri R.P.Padhy & Associate Advocate, Gunupur.

For O.P 2: Sri Sukanta Dash, Advocate, Rayagada.

                                                              JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that,  the complainant is the authorised priest of the  Gopinath temple, Gudari  and he is  to work  as such with a remuneration of Rs.180/- per month  for the daily rituals of the temple he is also entitled to get 60KGs of rice and cash of Rs.80/- for purchase of materials for the daily rituals. But unfortunately the Ops  have stopped  to pay his monthly wages and  also the materials   and cash for the daily worship since 2009  and the matter was  reported to the  concerned authorities but there is no response from them. The complainant is an old man having the burden of a heavy family members and to be maintained by him and is purely depending on the said temple.  The above action of the Ops  caused mental agony  to the complainant  and the society at large  and the compensation for such  harassment   cannot be compensated by any authority. Hence this complaint. 

                        Being  noticed, the opposite parties appeared  and   filed written version  inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. It is submitted  by the OP 1   that the complaint petition is not maintainable under the consumer protection act since there is no hiring of service on payment of cost  by the petitioner to the opposite party.   The Government has decided to bifurcation of Tahasil as per  petitioner   is working in Gopinath Temple, Gudari which  comes under the Gudari Tahasil   as such the salary of the petitioner could not be paid from 2009 till date. However, the OP 1  has taken steps for payment of arrear dues to the petitioner within shortest possible time Hence, prayed to dismiss the case  and redress the Ops.  

                        It is submitted by the OP 2 that  the complainant is not a servant , priest of Sri Gopinath Temple, Gudari and  he is not duly declared as Pujari of the deity as per the provision laid U/s 41 of the O.H.R.E Act,1951 and there is no such agreement or appointment made  with the c

complainant to perform sevapuja of the deity as a sebayat or priest.   The forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute  involving in the complaint  in as much as it is not a consumer dispute and does not fall with the provision of C.P.Act. The complainant has no locustandy to file  this proceeding as he is not a consumer nor any transaction made with the complainant for any consideration. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint petition with cost .    

                                                                        FINDINGS

                        Admittedly, the complainant is the consumer of the OP for providing of services to the complainant. The complainant has not received his remuneration as per the verbal agreement of the Ops for his daily rituals. Hence the complainant  has approached this Forum. But the OP 1  agreed in his counter that the OP 1  has taken steps  for payment of the  arrear dues of the complainant and also before hearing of the case the OP 1 paid the arrear amounts of the complainant without delay The OP 2 also admitted that the complainant is a priest of Gopinath Temple, Gudari but the temple is not coming under their control.

                         It is noticed that the Ops have violated the equality clause under Article 14  of the Constitution and before making any discrimination they have to satisfy the requirements contained under Art.14.

                        The equality clause contained in Art.14  require that all persons subjected to any legislations should be treat alike under like circumstances and conditions. Equals have to be treated equally. In order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled namely(i) that the classifications must be founded on intelligible differential which distinguishes persons  one things that, are grouped together from others  left out of group and (ii) that the deferential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statue in question(1984) S.C.C.222,229,230.

                        It is further stated that the classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational that  so say it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristic which are  to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristic must  have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. The Ops are coming under the preview of the Art.12 “ Other authorities” and being an instrumentality of the state or agency of the Government. Art.38 clearly states that state to secure a social order for the protection of the welfare of the people. The state shall strive to promote the welfare of  the people by securing and protecting effectively as it may a social orders in which justice, social, economic and political shall  inform all the institutions of the rational life.

                        Hence, this forum feels that the matter of classification is to be made in regard to the priests. Since the purpose of the service  to give economic boost to the Society at large and by their such service they are helping the nation building and the action of the OP is definitely cause disturbance to the process of progress. Hence we pass the following orders accordingly.                                                                                                         

                                               

           

                                                                        ORDER

                        We direct the Ops to declare the complainant as the regular priest of the Gopinath Temple, Gudari and pay the claim remuneration and amounts for the daily rituals from 2009. We do not award any cost or compensation. Parties to bear their own cost.                  Pronounced in open forum today on this 23^rd   day of September,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties  free of charge.

 

            Member                                                                       President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Copy of  letter No.5209 dt.27.12.14
2. Copy of  details of article paid the complainant(in odia)

By the Opp.Party: Nil                      

 

                                                                                                     President