Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 476 (JK)

Kuber Singh Salathia v. Director Funds Jammu

2015-09-04

BASHIR A.KIRMANI, D.K.KAPOOR

body2015
JUDGMENT D.K. Kapoor, Member (J) 1. A short but important controversy has been raised in this consumer complaint i.e. whether the complainant, who superannuated as civil servant (IAS Officer), is a 'consumer' and can maintain a complaint for release of unpaid interest on his GPF amount for a period beyond six months from his superannuation? Sh. Kuber Singh Salathia, hereinafter referred to as 'complainant', a KAS Officer was conferred IAS during his employment with J & K Government. He superannuated in August 2002. He contends that interest on his GPF amount lying with Ops was paid only for a period of six months which is gross non-adherence of Rule 6 of G.P.F. Rules. He has claimed Rs. 3,82,000 up to March 2003 with interest and damages to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs, totaling to Rs. 7,82,000. This complaint has been contested tooth and nail by OPs on the grounds, inter alia, that complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act and that complainant superannuated on 31.8.2002 but submitted his claim before OPs on 12.4.2007 i.e. after 4 years and 7 months after his retirement from service. Complainant is entitled to interest for six months only in view of Rule 20 of J & K G.P. Fund Rules read with Finance Department Circular No. DF/Coord-22/2006, dated 23.02.2006 and SRO 254 dated 02.9.2009. This is submitted that interest has been disbursed in favour of complainant for six months only. 2. We have heard advocates for parties at length and perused relevant rules and law vis-a-vis factual background of the case. 3. Regarding maintainability of complaint under C.P. Act, National Commission Delhi has, after making reference to its own earlier larger bench judgment (infra) and Hon'ble Apex Court judgments State of Orissa v. Div. Manager, LIC and Anr. (1996) 8 SCC 655 ; and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi ( AIR 2000 SC 331 ), held in Om Prakash v. Accountant General, Haryana (A & E), Lekha Bhawan, Chandigarh (Haryana) Revision Petition No. 3878 of 2009, decided on July 6, 2010, as under: "A four members Bench of this Commission in the case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr. v. Shivkant Shankar Naik, reported in : I (2003) CPJ 276 (NC), had the occasion to consider the question as to whether the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Accountant General of the States are rendering any service to Government employees under the provision of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 and the Rules framed thereunder. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, : III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 331 (supra) had been advanced as a plea, but the Bench after consideration of the facts therein had distinguished the same and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Div. Manager, LIC and Anr.; : (1996) 8 SCC 655 held as under: "We hold that dispute raised by the complainants/respondents is not 'consumer dispute' and they are not 'consumers' and Accountant Generals are not running any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It may also be noticed that the State Government in the exercise of its power has jurisdiction to give instructions not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Statutory Rules on that subject. We, therefore, allow all these revision petitions and set aside the orders of the District Forums and the State Commissions and dismiss the complaints. There shall be no order as to costs." 4. Likewise in a recent case titled 'Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. v. Dir. Health Services Haryana, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3060 ', Hon'ble SC has in paras 16 and 17 cleared the position which are reproduced hereunder under: 16. In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act. 17. In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the Forum under the Act for the retiral benefits. [Emphasis supplied] 5. Above is a complete answer to the proposition that complainant is not a consumer and this complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has filed this consumer complaint against refusal of Ops to pay him interest on his GPF amount exceeding six months, he being a government employee is barred from seeking relief under Consumer Protection Act. Complainant is not a consumer and may have remedy somewhere else but not before any consumer forum. Hon'ble Apex Court judgment "Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi AIR 2000 SC 331 ", relied upon by learned advocate for complainant pertains to Employees Provident Fund Scheme and as such not relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case. The above mooted question is accordingly answered in negative. 6. Coming next to the issue of interest alleged to be paid by OPs, suffice it to say that an eligible employee is entitled to receive interest on GPF amount only in accordance with Rules framed therefore. It has been vehement argued on behalf of the OPs that complainant superannuated on 31.8.2002 but submitted his claim before OPs on 12.4.2007 i.e. after 4 years and 7 months after his retirement from service as such he is entitled to interest for six months only counting from the date of his retirement i.e. 31.8.2002, under Rule 20 of J & K G.P. Fund Rules read with Finance Department Circular No. DF/Coord-22/2006, dated 23.02.2006. 7. There cannot be any conflict with the proposition that a government employee is governed by the rules and orders pertaining to all category and class of employees. Rule 20 of General Provident Fund Rules, Svt. 1981 (1924 A.D.), amended from time is the guiding force in the issue at hand. Rule 20 is reproduced hereunder: "20. 7. There cannot be any conflict with the proposition that a government employee is governed by the rules and orders pertaining to all category and class of employees. Rule 20 of General Provident Fund Rules, Svt. 1981 (1924 A.D.), amended from time is the guiding force in the issue at hand. Rule 20 is reproduced hereunder: "20. Unclaimed deposits.-Sums remaining unclaimed for a period exceeding 6 months should be transferred to deposits at the end of each year, and be dealt with under the ordinary rules relating to "deposits". 8. A bare perusal of above rule unambiguously leads only inference that a government employee is eligible to have interest on GPF amount for a period of six months from the date of his superannuation provided he applies within stipulated time. This rider is obviously ordained to obviate the practice of keeping GPF amount with the department with a view to earning interest at a higher rate than any other financial institution. Such a practice is intended to cause undue monetary benefit to an employee and corresponding undue loss to Govt. exchequer. Therefore Rule 20 is incorporated in the Rules and serves better public interests. Any move to scuttle rules position is counterproductive. 9. Sh. Khajuria learned advocate then tried to persuade us by making reference to SRO 254 of 2008 and expected us to hold complainant eligible for interest for two years. We are afraid we cannot accept the proposition as the words "two years" were inserted in Rule 20 by SRO 254 on dated 02.9.2008 i.e. much after complainant's retirement from service and these words cannot be read retrospectively. Complainant had retired from service in August 2002 as such he is not to be in any manner benefited by supra amendment in the above referred SRO. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble High Court in case 'Om Prakash v. State of Jammu And Kashmir through Chief Secretary and Ors., reported in 2010 JKJ (1) 884[HC], wherein the controversy has been set at rest. Obviously therefore we hold that complainant is not entitled to any benefit in amendment in SRO 254 (supra). In view of above discussion we hold that complainant is not a consumer and present complaint is not maintainable before any consumer forum. The same is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own respective costs. File shall be consigned to record after needful is done.