Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad vs RAM BIHARI SRIVASTAVA

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 2.5.2000 passed in Execution Case No. 36/E.O./97/480-95 and judgment and order dated 23.4.1997 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bahraich in Complaint Case No. 480/1995.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant has retired from the office of the Basic Shiksha Parishad in the year 1991 and before that since 1949 to 1972 he was an employee of Executive Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Bahraich. THE G.P.F. was deducted from the salary of the complainant by both the departments. After his retirement from service, the complainant has not been paid the sum of Rs. 10,241/- as deductions made from, the salary of the complainant on account of Provident Fund. Hence he has filed the present complaint. Notices were sent to the opposite parties on 18.12.1995 by registered post. Opposite party No. 1 filed a written statement and contested the claim of the complainant and alleged that after the formation of Basic Shiksha Parishad, the provident fund has been transferred to Basic Shiksha Parishad and now opposite party No. 1 is not liable to pay any amount, opposite party Nos. 2, 3 and 5 filed a written statement and alleged that all the payments have been made to the complainant. The amount claimed by the complainant is to be paid by opposite party No. 1 and he can get it from him.

The parties filed evidence and after considering the case of the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,756/- as the amount of G.P.F. along with interest to be paid within two months.

THE opposite parties did not go for any appeal. Hence in Execution Case No. 36/E.O./ 97/480-95, an order of conviction was passed and the opposite party was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as fine. Aggrieved against this order, the present appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is barred by time against the main order. LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that a writ petition was filed against the main order against which a stay order was passed. It may be stated that an appeal against the order of the learned District Forum lies before the State Commission under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act and not before the Hon''ble High Court. The appellant had the knowledge of the judgment dated 23.4.1997. Against that judgment he has filed the present appeal on 11.5.2000, after a lapse of about three years. The appeal is, therefore, highly time barred and no application for condonation of delay had been moved. As such the appeal is being dismissed on the ground of barred by limitation. As far as the order dated 2.5.2000 is concerned, it is merely an order for compliance of the main order. There is no illegality or irregularity in passing this order. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that it is a service matter and as such the District Forum has no jurisdiction to pass this order. The order passed by the learned District Forum may not be correct but the mistake committed by the District Forum can be corrected only in appeal. Instead of coming in appeal the opposite party preferred to file a writ petition against that order. Therefore, this point cannot be raised at this stage as it should have been raised only in appeal which should have been filed within the time of limitation. Moreover this point was not raised before the learned District Forum and no copy of the written statement has been filed in order to show that this question of jurisdiction was taken before the District Forum. Thus we find that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. No order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal dismissed.