Complaint filed on 04.05.2012  

                                                                                                                                     Compliant disposed on 27.02.2015 

                                                                            CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.86 OF 2012

     Between:-

Smt. Sama Amruthabai, W/o.Late Sri Sama Gangaram, Age: 70 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.3-1-69, Shiva Veedhi, Jagtial, Karimnagar District                                   

                                                                     ……      Complainant                                                                                  

                                               AND

1. The Principal, Govt. Junior College (Girls), Jagtial – 505 127.
2. The Commissioner & Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad.
3. The District Education Officer, D.E.O. Office, Karimnagar.

                                                                      ……   Opposite parties

This complaint is coming up before us for hearing on 28.01.2015, in the presence of Sri M.Mahender Advocate for counsel for complainant, and Sri P.Ashok Advocate for the opposite parties and on perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following.

:: O R D E R ::

This complaint is filed Under Section 12 of CP Act to direct the opposite parties to pay the revised pension along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) towards damages & mental agony and also to pay Rs.1000/- for the costs of the litigation.  

Brief facts of the Case

1.       The Complainant’s husband Sri.Sama Gangaram retired as Junior Lecturer (in Hindi) from the opposite party no.1 College on 28.02.1990 on Superannuation. Her husband was promoted to Junior Lecturer in Hindi from the cadre of Hindi Pandit Grade-I on 11.11.1982. The revised pay was fixed for the Grade-I in Hindi w.e.f 11.11.1963 by the then DEO concerned (opposite party no.3). She also averred that as per the judgment of Hon’ble AP Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in OA No.1915 of 1990 Dt: 17.04.1996, the revision of pay was fixed at Rs.2970 - 25.00 instead of 2810 – 25.00. The said Junior Lecturer died on 24.01.1997. On knowing the revised pension she submitted the retired pension papers to the opposite parties for necessary action i.e., for grant of revised pension. The opposite party had paid the arrears but revised pension not granted. When, she approached the opposite party 1/Principal to forward the revised pension papers to AG office. Instead of doing it, he was escaping to attend this work. She finally submits that she being a widow & senior citizen at the age of 70 is suffering mentally & economically due to delay in grant of revised pension. The attitude of opposite parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service, hence the case is filed before the forum.

2.       The opposite party no.1/Principal, Govt. Junior College (Girls) filed his written version and the same was adopted by opposite party 2 & 3.

          The opposite parties submit that the District Education Officer Karimnagar in Proc.RC.No.1975/E1/99/A1, Dt: 18.12.2000 it has been referred that in the C & DSE AP Hyderabad in Proc.R.C.No.5832/C2-2/98-2 Dt: 10.05.2000, it was enlightened that there were certain Audit objections raised by the Director of Local fund and was also told that the objection papers were enclosed to the S.R. But the objection papers were not found enclosed to the S.R. Hence the objection material was not received in his office, which was surprisingly missing during the dispatch. In the absence of it, the scrutiny of awarding T.B Scale of Late Sri.S.Gangaram H/O Complainant cannot be taken up.

          The opposite parties further submitted that as per the entry in service book of the deceased Lecturer, the pay fixation was sanctioned w.e.f 11.11.1963 to 03.02.1982 in the category of Hindi Pandit Grade-I and there on he was promoted as Junior Lecturer in Hindi and his pay was already fixed till his retirement took place on 28.02.1990 due to superannuation pension.

          The opposite parties finally also submits that as per the proceedings of the Commissioner & Director of School Education, A.P, Hyderabad RC.No.1412/C2/3/98, Dt: 27.08.1998, the individual is to be allowed Telangana Beneficial Scale from 27.10.1965 but the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar vide Proc.RC.No.882/A1/97 Dt: 21.09.1997, allowed from 11.11.1966 and pay fixation made accordingly, which is incorrect and the said Lecturer passed Hindi Vidwan on 30.08.1965.

          The opposite party finally submitted that the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar vide Proceeding Dt: 21.09.1997 has clearly informed that these orders are not applicable for claiming the amount, until and unless these orders are approved by the Commissioner & Director of School Education, AP, Hyderabad and the complainant is not a consumer hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

          The complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents marked as exhibits from A1 to A9 whereas the opposite party filed only his evidence affidavit, Heard both the counsels.

          Now the point for consideration is, whether the opposite parties are responsible for deficiency in service? If so, To what relief?

POINT

          This is a simple case wherein revised pension not granted to the complainant who being the wife of the deceased Junior Lecturer in Hindi who retired on 28.02.1990 due to superannuation, despite several representations to opposite parties and Judgment of A.P.A.T                Dt:17.04.1996, in favour of her husband.

          The Ex.A6 is the Proceeding of District Educational Officer, Karimnagar Dt:15.10.1996 wherein it is mentioned that “The services of Sri.S.Gangaram retired Junior Lecturer in Hindi from Govt. Junior College (Girls) Jagtial are hereby regularized w.e.f 11.11.1963 in the cadre of Hindi Pandit Grade-I with all the consequential benefits of pay & allowances including the preliminary benefits, instead of 27.10.1965. And the Principal Govt. Junior College (Girls) Jagtial is requested to take action accordingly. The service books in two volumes are herewith returned” A copy of this was also submitted to the commissioner & Director of School Education.

          The Ex.A9 is the Proc.R.C.No.882/A1/97 Dt:21.09.1997 of District Educational Officer, Karimnagar is with regard to pay fixation and implementation of APAT Judgment to late Sri.S.Gangaram retired Junior Lecturer wherein the pay scale of 165-245/- was fixed w.e.f 11.11.1963 and the corresponding scale from time to time as in the annexure appended to the proceedings. In these proceedings the District Educational Officer mentioned in the last para that these orders are only for the purpose of furnishing the pay & allowances as per fixation, but not applicable for claiming of amount until & unless approved by the commissioner & Director of School Education, AP, Hyderabad.

          The Ex.A7 is the office letter R.C.No.1915/E1/99 Dt: 07.02.2000 of the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar addressed to C & DSE AP, Hyderabad with regard to implementation of APAT order and sanction of arrears claim of Telangana benefit scale based on the application Dt:29.11.1999 filed by the complainant/wife of late Sri.S.Gangaram, The District Educational Officer sought sanction of the arrear claim at an early date in the said letter.   

          The Ex.A1 Dt: 04.01.2010, Ex.A2 Dt: 08.03.2010 & Ex.A4 Dt:20.10.2011 are the representations made by the complainant to the Principal Govt. Junior  College (Girls) Jagtial, asking for the revised pension paper to be sent to AG Office, but no response was seen from the Principal/opposite party no.1.

          All the above documentary evidence prove this as a Prima facie case and the complainant/wife of the late S.Gangaram (Pensioner) struggled enough to pursue her case with the opposite parties.

          The opposite party no.1/Principal Govt. Junior College (Girls) Jagtial being at fault raised the question that the complainant is not a consumer. The learned counsel for the complainant filed a citation of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in RP.No.570 of 2002 Dt: 20^th October, 2005 where in it was held that a pensioner & beneficiary is a consumer under the provision of the CP Act 1986.

          Similarly, in the case of State of Kerala Vs M.Padmanabhan Nair (1985) 1 SCC 429, it was observed that pension & gratuity are no larger any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement but are valuable rights & property in their hands & any culpable delay in settlement & disbursement thereof must be visited with the penalty of payment of interest at the current market rate till actual payment. This view was reiterated in Uma Agrawal (Dr) V. State of U.P. (1999) 3 SCC.

          On careful perusal of the instant case, when the pay fixation was done on the order of the (1996) APAT, and arrears were already paid to the beneficiary, why the officials concerned especially the opposite party no.1/Principal, was reluctant to pursue the case with his higher-ups and release the revised pension to the complainant?. The contention of the Principal that the approval of the C & DSC AP, Hyderabad is required to claim the amount carries no substance, Hence the complainant is able to prove her case and also the deficiency in service against the opposite parties. So the point is answered in favour of the complainant.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are jointly & severally directed to pay to the complainant the revised pension along with 8% interest p.a till payment is made & also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards hardship & mental agony plus Rs.1000/- towards cost of the litigation. Time for compliance is 30 days.         

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer and after correction, the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 27^th day of February, 2015.

MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT (FAC)

NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE

FOR COMPLAINANT:                       

1. Ex.A1 is the photo copy of letter (fwd revised pension paper) from complainant addressed to opposite party no.1 along with postal receipt Dt: 04.01.2010.
2. Ex.A2 is the photo copy of letter from complainant addressed to opposite party no.1 Dt: 08.03.2010.
3. Ex.A3 is the original copy of Professional Courier receipt Dt: 08.03.2010. (linked to Ex.A2)
4. Ex.A4 is the duplicate copy of letter from complainant addressed to opposite party no.1 Dt: 20.10.2011.
5. Ex.A5 is the original copy of Postal receipt Dt: 21.10.2011. (linked to Ex.A4)
6. Ex.A6 is the photo copy of Proceedings issued by DEO, Karimnagar Dt: 15.10.1996. (fixation of pay Hindi Pandit Grade-I Cadre)
7. Ex.A7 is the photo copy of letter from DEO Karimnagar addressed to Commissioner and Director of School Education, AP, Hyderabad Dt: 07.02.2000. (Implementation of order of APAT Dt: 17.04.1996 in OA No.1915/90)
8. Ex.A8 is the photo copy of Extract of pay fixation sheet Dt: 11.12.1997.
9. Ex.A9 is the photo copy of Proceedings issued by DEO, Karimnagar Dt: 21.09.1997. (pay fixation of Rs.165-245/- w.e.f 11.11.1963)

FOR OPPOSITE PARTY: Nil    

                                Sd/-                                                                                 Sd/-

                              MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT(FAC)