PARAMANANDA NAYAK vs ADDITIONAL CHIEF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER

THE complainant has filed this petition against the opposite party claiming compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- on account of negligence in transmitting his pension papers and other relevant documents to the authority concerned.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant was appointed by the Director of Family Welfare, Orissa as a B.E.E. and retired from the service on 1.12.1989 after being declared invalid by the State Medical Board, Orissa. After retirement, the appointing authority directed him vide his letter No. 2902 dated 1.2.1991 to submit the pension papers to the Medical Officer, Deva P.H.C. or to the Addl. Chief Dist. Medical Officer, Sambalpur by post, since the complainant expressed his inability to move in person to a distant place by bus for submitting the same. Accordingly the valuable documents in duplicate duly signed and attested by the S.D.M.O., Jaipur were submitted through Regd. Post with A.D. vide receipt No. 3354 dated 25.8.1992 from Devidwar Post Officer, Jaipur. But there was inordinate delay of about 20 months for settlement of his pension, gratuity, pay, etc. which was not paid by the opposite party inspite of several requests in writing. THE inaction of the opposite party had caused mental and financial agony apart from physical strain. Hence the complaint. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties at length.

The learned Counsel on behalf of Addl. Chief Medical Officer, Sambalpur submitted that it is a service matter and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.

IT is an undisputed fact and a settled position of law that with regard to the retirement benefit and service matter, the complaint is not maintainable under the provisions of the C.P. Act. The District Forum or the State Commission cannot entertain any such case and it cannot direct for payment of gratuity and other retiral benefits. IT was further argued that a person who has deposited any amount towards G.P.F. and has any grievance with respect to the pensionary benefits cannot file a complaint before the learned District Forum or the State Commission because the A.G. Orissa performs a statutory duty under the revisions of the Provident Fund Act. So, a person who deposits an amount in G.P.F. cannot be treated as a consumer. The definition as contained in Section 2(1)(d) is explicit, because there is no hiring on availing of services for consideration. As regards G.I.S. and Pension, Gratuity, unutilised leave salary and commutation, etc., the Government employees and beneficiaries under the Government of Orissa also do not satisfy the above definition as the services provided to them are free of charge and the question of deficiency in service does not come into the picture.

IN view of the position explained above, the contentions advanced by the complainant in support of his case are devoid of merit. Accordingly the same is dismissed. No order as to the costs. Let copies of the judgment be issued to the parties concerned as per rules. Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President-I agree. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Complaint dismissed.