SHEILA MOOKHERJEE vs KASHI VIDYAPEETH

PETITIONER, Smt. Sheila Mookherjee was the complainant before the District Forum. 1. Undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant joined respondent Kashi Vidhyapeeth as Reader in the year 1975, where as per the then prevailing term of service, she was a member of ''Contributory Provident Fund Scheme'' (CPFS). Government of Uttar Pradesh, with the approval of Governor issued a new arrangement vide its letter dated 24.12.1983 for the employees of the University, by which time the respondent had become a University, hence coming within the purview of this letter. Under the new dispensation, the employees desirous of getting benefits at par with those of State Government Employees, like Pension, Death-cum-Gratuity Benefits, Family Pension and General Provident Scheme (G.P.F.) could opt for the new arrangement. Admitted position is that the complainant opted for new arrangement. As per letter dated 24.12.1983, amounts collected till 31.12.1983 under Contributory Provident Fund (C.P.F.) Scheme were to be credited in Government Treasury under a given head of Account. As a sequel to exercise of option in favour of GPF by the complainant, amount standing in her favour under C.P.F. Scheme was credited in favour of the State Government. The complainant retired from the service on 30.6.1994 and alongwith other post-retiral benefits, complainants were also paid Rs. 1,77,074/- under G.P.F. Case of the complainant is that there have been more deductions from her salary made every year and she made her own calculations according to which she was entitled for Rs. 3,63,369.70. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and claiming several reliefs. The respondents remained absent - despite service of notices. District Forum on the basis of material on record and hearing the complainant, passed a brief ex parte order allowing the complaint along with interest @ 15% and cost of Rs. 15,000/-.

ON an execution application filed by the complainant/decree-holder, District Forum ordered attachment of amount of Rs. 6,28,153.79 which was stayed by the High Court on the condition of the respondent filing an appeal before the State Commission. ON an appeal filed by the respondent against both the orders, i.e. passed in complaint as well as in execution before the State Commission, it set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the petitioner/complainant is not a consumer. Hence this revision petition. As per complainant, deficiency of the respondent is by way of - (i) excess deductions of her share of CPF during her service period when she was covered by C.P.F.; (ii) collected amounts were not invested properly; (iii) as per letter dated 24.12.1983, respondent was obliged to credit her contributions to C.P.F. alongwith interest within 90 days of her exercising the option; admittedly she exercised the option in the year 1989, whereas respondent credited this amount in favour of the Government not within 90 days but after three years, i.e. in 1992 - hence, the complainant''s case related to deficiency during the period when she was contributing towards CPF. Respondent has no right to misappropriate the amount of CPF. She is very much a consumer of the respondent for which she relies upon the judgment of Regional Provident Fund Commission v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC)=X (1999) SLT 395=AIR 2000 SC 331. On all these grounds the petition needs to be allowed. Argument of learned Counsel for the respondent is that the order of the State Commission as per law. He also relies upon the judgment of this Commission R.P. 961/1992, CAG of India v. Shiv Shankar Naik & Ors., wherein this Commission has held that disputes under GPF cannot be dealt with under the provision of CPA, 1986.

After perusal of material on record and hearing the facts, we find that as per the Scheme formulated by the Government of U.P., on representations made by the employees of the Universities, terms of service were brought at par with that of a government employee with regard to Pension, Death-cum-Gratuity Benefits, Family Pension and GPF. After the exercise of option by the appellant in 1989 - two consequences followed - one all previous deposits under CPF alongwith interest were credited to the State Government, and secondly complainant now became a member/beneficiary of GPF Scheme alongwith other post-retiral benefits. Any connection with the previous schemes stood snapped from 1.1.1984 as per letter dated 24.12.1983. The complainant was at the pertinent time member of GPF. As per this Commission''s judgment (supra) disputes relating to GPF lie outside the jurisdiction of Consumer Courts. This judgment takes into consideration the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in RPFC v. Shiv Kumar Joshi. In our view the complainant has failed to show as to what loss has been caused to her or what is deficiency on the part of the respondent, after 1.1.1984. She has been paid GPF as per terms and conditions of the Scheme. To now point out that the investment pattern under CPF was not beneficial to the complainant or those deductions were more than the stipulated percentage causing loss to her, related to the old period, which in any case shall also be barred by limitation. She was a beneficiary/contributory towards GPF Scheme, and as held by us, being a member of this scheme she cannot be held to be a consumer. In view of these, we see no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner - hence dismissed. We refrain from imposing any costs. Parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition dismissed.