M.K. SANGAL vs ACCOUNTANT GENERAL-I (LEKHA)

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a member of the U.P. Higher Judicial Service and was last posted in U.P. at Saharanpur as Additional Sessions Judge. From there, he was transferred to Delhi on deputation as a Law Officer, M.C.D., under orders of the U.P. Government and was retired from thereafter attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.1990.

THAT the complainant was a regular subscriber to the General Provident Fund Account No. G.A.U. 23506, which had been allotted to him by the respondent in the year 1961. The last deposit in the G.P.F. was made in August 1989 that is 6 months prior to the date of retirement after which the claimant, as per Rules, had stopped making further deposits. That the claimant retired on 31.1.90 but the respondent has not so far paid the deposits of the G.P.F. Account till today although a number of reminders were sent from time to time. A final notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was also served in the month of January 1991 but that too did not have any effect on the respondent

That the claimant was also never favoured with the account slip after 1984-85 although a number of reminders were sent to the A.G. and hence at the time of retirement, he could not withdraw even 90% of the amount to his credit in G.P.F. for want of actual figures.

THAT the respondent had sent a final authorisation slip sometimes in the end of December 1989 but since the said final authorisation slip was defective in so many respects, it was returned to the respondent by registered post on 3.1.90. That the said final authorisation slip was directed for payment to Treasury Office, Allahabad where he was never posted but instead he was posted on deputation at Delhi and so he had returned the same for necessary correction authorising payment either at Delhi or at Saharanpur. The said final authorisation slip, after correction, was never sent back to the claimant.

THAT the said final authorisation slip was not in respect of the whole amount and the deposits for the month of March 1980 and April 1988 to July 1989 had not been added. The claimant sent duly verified statements from Treasury Officer, Saharanpur to the respondent vide letter dated 3.1.90 but even thereafter final authorisation slip was not sent That the last account slip received by the claimant related to the year 1984-85 which showed a balance of Rs. 30,261/-. The deduction for G.P.F. used to be made at source and the deductions for G.F. account after 1984-85 had been as under: - 1985-86 Rs. 6,957/- 1986-87 Rs. 4,430/- 1987-88 Rs. 3,880/- 1988-89 Rs. 13,520/- 1989-90 Rs. 5,510/- That besides, there had been discrepancy in his previous account also and the same was accepted by the respondents'' office vide letter No. Vidhi/6/ DISC/572 dt. 12.1.88 and it was assured that the commissions amounting to Rs. 2,007/- shall be credited to the claimant''s G.P.F. account and would be shown in the account slip for the year 1985-86 which was never received by him. That the claimant was also entitled to interest on his deposits annually and the said amount of interest, according to the claimant''s calculations comes to Rs. 45,000/- approximately which have been calculated at the rate admissible for the year 1984-85 although later on, it was enhanced.

THE complainant has prayed that the respondents be directed to issue the authorisation slip regarding his G.P.F. Account payable at Delhi alongwith compensation of Rs. 20,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony caused to him.

THE respondents were served. THEy never appeared before the Commission and hereby wrote a letter dated 14.1.92 informing that vide Rules 2(d) and 2(u) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the Accountant General (U.P.) was not covered under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. THEy also furnished an affidavit alongwith their letter dated 14.1.92 stating that as per Rule No. 4 read with Rules 2(d) and 2(u) of the Act, Accountant General does not fall within the jurisdictional purview of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. THEre was no name or other relevant particulars of the person who had submitted this affidavit. THE case was adjourned for many hearings but the respondent never appeared before the Commission and consequently they were proceeded against ex-parte. The complainant, in support of the allegations, filed an affidavit by way of his evidence wherein he affirmed and corroborated the pleas taken by him in the complaint

We have gone through the Consumer Protection Act and Rules made therein. There is no such provision which grants immunity to the Accountant General as has been claimed by the respondents vide their letter dated 14.1.92. This complaint has been made with regard to deficiency in service and therefore it falls within the definition given in Clause ''C'' of Sub-section (i) of Section 2 of the Act. ''Deficiency'' as defined in Clause ''g'' of the same Section includes a fault in the nature and manner of performance in relation to any service. The Accountant General has been charged with the responsibility of maintaining the accounts of the State Government employees regularly and correctly; keeping them informed about the subscriptions made by them from their salaries at annual intervals and making final payment to them on their laying down their office under the employer Government. Failure of the Accountant General to render any of these services tentamounts to a deficiency as defined under the Act and hence no protection under the Act is available against non-performance by the Accountant General. We are, therefore, not inclined to give any benefit to the respondent on this ground. Moreover the objective behind the G.P.F. as a matter of fact is to provide opportunity and facilities for savings to the government employees.

THESE savings for the Fund are deposited with the Accountant General instead of a banker. Similarly the Banks and Post Offices are also authorised to provide identical services to the citizens of this country by way of accepting deposits under the Provident Fund Schemes. If the matter is viewed from this angle the Accountant General for all intends and purposes functions as a banker by way of accepting the deposits from the employees of the Government under General Provident Funds Scheme. It need not be discussed that the Banks and the Post Offices earn higher interests on the deposits by further utilising the investing these deposits. Similarly the Accountant General also earns higher interests that the one paid on the deposits to the employees. The functions of the Accountant General while taking the deposits of G.P.F. are thus identical to that of the bankers and we are, therefore, of the considered opinion that any deficiency in the service rendered to the employees in this respect is covered under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The factum about the non-payment of G.P.F. contributed by the complainant has not been disputed by the respondent. The quantum of the G.P.F. and other details have been affirmed by the complainant through his affidavit on record. Consequently, we are inclined to admit the claim made by Shri M.K. Sangal.

CONSEQUENTLY the respondents are directed to issue authorisation slip in favour of the claimant in respect of the entire amount of G.P.F. to his credit which according to the complainant is Rs. 66,464/- together with such interest as is admissible for each year of his subscription upto the date of his retirement and @ 18% p.a. thereafter till the date of actual payment to him. It has been amply brought out that the claimant has been fruitlessly pursuing his case with the respondent for payment of the dues which are legitimately payable to him and the payment whereof, the respondent has no right to withhold. Silence on the part of the respondent has undoubtedly caused him mental anguish during all this long period of more than 2 years. It is distressing to note that the apathetic attitude of the respondent has forced the complainant, after a long period of patient pursuit of his case with the respondent, to take recourse to legal remedy, which caused him expenditure and harassment. There is no reason why he should suffer only because the respondent decided not to perform his legitimate duties. The claim of the complainant for damages on account of this mental anguish is fully justified although it may not be possible to measure it in terms of money. We accordingly direct the respondent to pay him damages of Rs. 10,000/- on this account. The respondent is also burdened with costs of Rs. 11,000/-.

BEFORE parting with the judgment we are constrained to record that the respondents have been taking the matter in a casual manner and we recommend that due enquiry should be held in the matter and recovery of the damages and cost be made from the delinquent officials after fixing the responsibility. The respondent is further directed to comply with this order within 90 days from its date failing which he shall make himself liable to action under Section 27 of the Act. Copy of this order be sent to the parties by registered post. Order accordingly.