Executive Engineer Township Division Farakka Barrage Project vs Putul Dom

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/opposite parties against the impugned order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (in short, ''the State Commission '') in S.C. Case No. FA/689/2010 - The Executive Engineer & Ors. Vs. Smt. Putul Dom by which, while allowing appeal partly, upheld order of District Forum allowing complaint, but set aside the order of payment of interest.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent is the wife of Chandra Dom who was employee of OP No. 1. Chandra Dom died on 6.7.1996 at Farakka, leaving behind the complainant and four children. The complainant was described as the nominee in the service book of the deceased. Pension was sanctioned in her favour on 24.2.1997 and it was paid regularly upto September 1997, but subsequently, the pension was stopped. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for restoration of pension and releasing of arrears. OPs/Petitioners contested complaint and submitted that pension was sanctioned in favour of the complainant within one month of the death of her husband, but subsequently one Santosh Dom claiming himself to be the son by the first wife of Chandra Dom claimed pension; so, pension was kept in abeyance. Chandra Dom did not declare Santosh Dom as his son in his declaration dated 30.4.1990. Complainant also did not disclose this fact. Succession certificate was called from the complainant. Later on, complainant disclosed by affidavit that Santosh Dom is son by the first wife of Chandra Dom and in such circumstances, there was no deficiency in withholding pension. It was further alleged that Consumer Form has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OPs to restore the pension of the complainant from September, 1997, as per her share after final settlement of the dispute within 2 months from the date of order of District Forum. Further, awarded 15% p.a. interest on accumulated amount and also awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of the proceedings. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and order imposing interest was set aside and rest of the order was upheld against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that District forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as per the provisions of the Pension Act, 1871, and learned District Forum has committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission has committed error in upholding the order; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of written statement clearly reveals that OP/Petitioner had taken objection regarding jurisdiction in the written statement filed before District Forum. Learned District Forum has not dealt with this aspect. Same objection was raised by the Petitioner in Memo of Appeal, but learned State Commission has also not dealt with this aspect, though, both the Fora below ought to have decided question of jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, as held by the National Commission in IV (2008) CPJ 146 (NC) - State of Haryana Vs. Lila Ram. Learned District Forum and learned State Commission have referred Section 11 of the Pension Act and came to the conclusion that Pension of the claimant cannot be withheld. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that as per Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (CAT), only the CAT had power to decide this issue and learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. Section 3 (q) Defines "service matters " as under: "Section 3(q): "service matters ", in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the Government, as respects- (i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, premature retirement and superannuation; (iii) leave of any kind; (iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever; "

SECTION 14 of this Act deals with the Jurisdiction, Powers and Authority of the CAT, which reads as under: "14. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the Central Administrative Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the Supreme Court in relation to- (a) recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment, to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence service, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian; (b) all service matters concerning- (i) a member of any All-India Service; or (ii) a person [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred to in clause (c) ] appointed to any civil service of the Union or any civil post under the Union; or (iii) a civilian [not being a member of an All-India Service or a person referred in clause (c) ] appointed to any defence services or a post connected with defence, and pertaining to the service of such member, person or civilian, in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation [or society] owned or controlled by the Government;

ADMITTEDLY , deceased was Government employee. This Commission has held in State of Haryana Vs. Lila Ram (Supra) as under: "6. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to by Ms. Surekha Raman, Amicus Curiae. The ruling therein pertains to whether a contributor to the Employees Provident Fund would fall within the definition of a consumer. It was in that context that the Apex Court has ruled that a member of EPF scheme is a consumer. The case in hand pertains to the retiral benefits of a State Government servant and, therefore, he would not be covered under the definition of a consumer under Section 2 (1)(d) (ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986. The Fora below, therefore, have wrongly entertained the compliant ".

In the light of aforesaid judgment it becomes clear that Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the Pension matter and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission also committed error in dismissing appeal and revision petition is to be allowed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and impugned order dated 25.5.2012 passed by learned State Commission in S.C. Case No. FA/689/2010 - The Executive Engineer & Ors. Vs. Smt. Putul Dom is set aside and complaint filed by complainant/respondent is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.