PRINCIPAL, R.S.M. INTER COLLEGE vs REKHA

THESE are the three revision petitions later on treated as appeals filed by the Principal, R.S.M. Inter College, Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra in complaint Case Nos. 1111/1997 dated 6.2.1998, 1069/SC/1997 dated 6.2.1998 and 1071/1997 dated 6.2.1998.

THE facts of the cases filed by the complainants before the learned District Forum are briefly stated as follows : (1) In Complaint No. 1111/1997, the complainant Smt. Rekha Verma stated that she is employed as a teacher in the R.S.M. Inter College, Robertsganj since 9.10.1985 where she worked as C.T. grade teacher till 4.8.1992. When she was promoted to the post of L.T. grade teacher and had become entitled to the L.T. grade of 1400/2300 which became effective from 1.1.1986, she has stated that as a result of revision in pay, she become entitled to draw arrears of Rs. 44334.87 which the college authorities have not paid to her and, therefore, it was deficiency of service on the part of college authorities and hence the arrear amount and the damages have been claimed. (2) In Complaint No. 1069/1997, complainant Jitendra Singh stated that he was working as teacher in R.S.M. Inter College, Robertsganj since 26.12.1986 at L.T. grade teacher and was promoted on the post of Lecturer in Geography immediately after 5.2.1993 and was, therefore, entitled to the grade of 1600-2600 which was the revised grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986. He has claimed an amount of Rs. 26323- 84 as arrears of pay which has been denied to him by the authorities of the said college. This he stated is the deficiency in service on the part of the Principal, R.S.M. Inter College, Robertsganj and he has claimed the arrears of the salary alongwith damages. (3) In the Complaint No. 1071/1997 before the learned District Forum, Sonbhadra the complainant Krishna Kumar Tiwari stated that he was employed in the R.S.M. Inter College, Robertsganj since 10.10.1985 as a C.T. grade teacher and from 5.8.1992 he got the L.T. grade which is 1400-2300 which was revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986. He has claimed his arrear of salary of Rs. 44338.90 along with the damages. He has stated that this was deficiency of the service on the part of the employer, the Principal of R.S.M. Inter College.

The learned District Forum, Sonbhadra heard the complainants and passed judgment in favour of these complainants holding that the complaints are allowed and opposite parties were directed to pay to the complainant the amounts of arrears of salary due to them within one month along with 10% interest on the due amount of salaries. All these orders are dated 6.2.1998.

Since, the facts in the three appeals are the same, the relief asked for is also of similar nature and the orders passed by the learned District Forum are also similar, the cases are being taken up together and orders passed shall apply to them accordingly.

MR. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the learned Counsel for the revisionist applied to this Commission on 9.3.1998 that the revisions be treated as appeals. On consideration of the facts of the three cases, the revisions were ordered to be treated as appeals. The appellants have advanced the plea that the complainants are not the consumers as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the services were not hired by them from the R.S.M. Inter College, Robertsganj. In their view the matter pertains to payment of salaries for which the learned District Forum has no jurisdiction. It was further pointed out by the appellants that the cases not being the consumer disputes, there was no question of deficiency of service and, therefore, the cases were not maintainable in the District Forum.

OBJECTIONS against the statements of appellant were filed by the respondents. It was stated that - (i) revision is not maintainable in the instant cases under Section 17(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and appeals under Section 15 of the Act should have been preferred. After consideration of the facts of the cases and on the application of learned Counsel of the revisionists, the revisions were treated as appeals. Hence, this issue has been decided by us accordingly. (ii) In Case No. 212 of 1997, Mahendra Nath Tripathi v. R.S.M. Inter College, the District Forum, Sonbhadra passed the order to pay the outstanding amount to complainant and that order of the Forum was complied with by the Principal of R.S.M. Inter College, Robertsganj and a descriminatory attitude has been shown by the Principal of the College in not complying with the orders of the Forum in these three cases. (iii) The State in these cases is a consumer and pays to the teachers involved in these cases and the teachers in turn would be beneficiary consumers.

We have gone through the entire records placed on the three cases filed and have also perused the judgments dated 6.2.1998 of the learned District Forum. We have also heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsels of both the parties. A scrutiny of the judgments and orders dated 6.2.1998 passed by the learned District Forum reveals that the learned Forum while passing the orders and allowing the complaints has heavily relied on the point that in a similar matter decided by that Forum in Complaint No. 212/1997, Mahendra Nath Tripathi v. Principal, R.S.M. Inter College, Robertsganj, the complaint was allowed and the Principal complied with the order and made payment. The learned District Forum in these three cases held that similar compliance be made by the opposite parties. The learned District Forum has also relied on the point that the Hon''ble High Court had passed orders for regularisation of teachers and their enforcement was got done through the orders of District Forum, in Case 212/1997. We do not understand as to how the orders of the Hon''ble High Court can be enforced through the District Forum, specially when no records to this effect have been placed before us. Our doubts are further enforced when the judgments dated 6.2.1998 refer to the provisions of such cases to be referred to the State Government vide G.O. dated 16.12.1990. In our opinion the matter involved in the three cases is purely the admissibility of outstanding/arrear salary and the dispute lies between the employer and the employee. Specific provisions exist for redressal of these matters and the appellants could have easily gone to the higher authorities like District Inspector of Schools, Dy. Director of Education, Director of Secondary Education and even to the State Government and the service Tribunal. For resolution of these matters, District Forum is not the right place to be approached. Teachers employed in Government-aided schools/colleges are certainly not the consumers or beneficiary consumers. The learned Counsel for respondent has in support of his argument placed reliance on the Hon''ble Supreme Court Rulings in L.D.A. v. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) and Glass Studio v. Central Excise and Custom Collector, II (1991) CPJ 585. These rulings do not have in any way any concern with the instant cases where the dispute is not the consumer dispute and the appellant and the respondents are employers and employees of a Government- aided Intermediate College, neither of them being consumer or beneficiary consumer. It does not matter if learned District Forum has passed an order in Complaint Case 212/1997 and the same has been complied with then the other similar orders passed by the same Forum should also be complied with. A careful study of the provisions of Section 2(l)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would clearly reveal that neither the appellants nor the respondents are either consumers or beneficiary consumers. Evidently, the learned District Forum seriously erred in holding that consumer disputes were involved in the instant cases. Thus, if one such order of the Forum has been complied with, it does not mean all or any other orders should also be complied with. In the circumstances discussed in this judgment we hold that the learned District Forum had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on these matters and the cases are not maintainable in the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We, therefore, allow the appeals and the orders of the District Forum dated 6.2.1998 are liable to be set aside. ORDER The appeals are allowed and we set aside the judgment and orders passed by the learned District Forum, Sonbhadra in Complaint Case Nos. 1111/1997, 1069/1997 and 1071/1997 dated 6.2.1998. This judgment shall be placed on records of Appeal No. 158/1999 and its copies shall be placed on records of Appeal Nos. 159/1999 and 160/1999 which shall also be governed by this judgment. Let copies be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeals allowed.