Orissa

Rayagada

CC/373/2016

Sri Dhoba Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Treasury Officer, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

06 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 373 / 2016.                                       Date.    06    .9. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                               Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                          Member

Sri Dhoba Nahak,  Retired  Head Master, K.Singhpur,   Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                                                                        …….Complainant

Vrs.

1.The Treasury Officer, Rayagada.

2. The   Controller of Accounts, Bhubaneswar.         

3.The  Deputy  Secretary to Govt.,  Finance Department, Bhubaneswar.

4. The  Accountant General, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.                                                                                                                                                             .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri V.R.M.Patnaik, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.P No.1 :- In person.

For the O.P. No.2 to 4:- Set exparte.

                                J u d g e m e n t.

        The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non payment  a sum of  Rs.20,097/- towards  recovered amount from Gratuity.

Upon  Notice, the O.P No.1 put in their appearance and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.P No.1  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  No. 1. Hence the O.P No.  1  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed  the O.P  No.2 to 4   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  12 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.P No.2 to 4.  Observing lapses of around 2 years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.P. No. 2 to 4. The action of the O.P No. 2 to 4 are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. No. 2 to 4   set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Heard arguments from the the    O.P  No. 1  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.

            From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant was working as Teacher and retired after  completion  of 60 years of age. After retirement he was  entitled  gratuity .  After receipt of the gratuity  the O.Ps  had recovered  an  amount  of Rs. 20,097/-  from the gratuity. Inspite of repeated correspondence made to the O.Ps the O.Ps are paid deaf ear. Hence this case.

 

            The O.P. No.1 in their written version para No.03 clearly  mentioned that  on receipt of the orders from the competent authority as required  in the Rule-168 and 169 of  OGFR Vol-I and read with  SR-345 to 349 of  OTC- Vol-I, the above withhold  amount can be passed  for payment by  this office. However the authority  for payment of  above dues has been received on Dt.29.12.2016 vide Lr. No.55796 Dt. 27.12.2016 of Controller of Accounts, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and basing upon that authority the  payment of Rs.20,097/- has made to the complainant on Dt. 30.12.2016.

            This forum agreed views taken in the written version by the O.P No.1.

 

            This forum observed the O.Ps. after receipt of notice from the Forum promptly  have paid Rs.20,097/-  to the complainant towards  recovered amount from Gratuity on Dt. 30.12.2016 and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  The present case in hand the complainant is not entitled any compensation from the O.Ps.

To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

ORDER.

Accordingly the case stands disposed off.  There is no order as to cost and compensation.

Dictated and corrected by me.   Pronounced on this          6 ^th.day  of   June, 2018.

 

Member.                                   Member.                                           President