SUKHBIR SINGH vs CHIEF ENGINEER, MAHI PARIYOJANA And OTHERS

THE complainant before the District Forum, Chittorgarh, has filed this appeal under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) against the order dated 28.1.92 passed in Complaint Case No. 34/91. By the impugned order the complaint was dismissed on the ground that it is not maintainable. Briefly put the facts leading to this appeal are these :-

2.THE complainant was employed as Executive Engineer & Technical Assistant to the Superintending Engineer, Banswara. He completed the age of 58 years on 31.8.89. Provisional pension was sanctioned under Rule 286 of the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules on 1.9.89 and he is getting 75% of the provisional pension. THE grievance of the complainant is that after attaining superannuation age on 31.8.89, the amount of gratuity should have been sanctioned but provisional gratuity was not even granted. He has further stated that he has not been paid salary for the period 5.8.89 to 31.8.89 amounting to Rs. 4,333/-. He, therefore, filed the complaint dated 29.8.91 before the District Forum, Chittorgarh. It was prayed in the complaint that a direction may be issued to the opposite parties to pay him the provisional gratuity and also the arrears of salary. Version of the case was filed on behalf of the opposite parties opposing the complaint. It was stated that the complainant was suspended by order dated 5.8.89 and during the period of suspension, he has attained the superannuation age on 31.8.89. A criminal case was pending against the complainant underRule 13 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. THE complainant will be entitled to get the pension from 1.9.89 after the decision of the case holding that the offence is not proved against him and that he is acquitted. It was stated that the complainant-appellant is not entitled to anything beyond provisional pension under Rule 170(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules. A preliminary objection was raised that the complaint cannot be entertained, heard and decided by the Forum as the complainant is not a consumer, for, the complainant had not paid any consideration to the State Govt, for rendering service in exchange of which the State Govt, is bound to give pension, gratuity etc. to the complainant. THE District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is not maintainable. Against that the complainant has filed this appeal.

Service was presumed to be sufficient on the appellant vide order sheet dated 15.9.92. He has not appeared today. We heard Mr. M.L. Vyas, Advocate for the respondents and considered the record and the order under appeal in the light of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respondents.

5. WE have carefully gone through the grounds of the appeal. The only question with which we are concerned at present is whether the District Forum was right in dismissing the complaint of the complainant-appellant on the ground that he is not a consumer. Consumer has been defined in Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act. The relevant part of the definition of consumer is as follows :- "(d) ''consumer'' means any person,- (i) (ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person;"

The complainant was employed as Executive Engineer-cum-Technical Assistant in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Mahi Pariyojana. As employer of the Govt., salary was paid and according to the rules after retirement pension became payable and so also gratuity. For all this, it cannot be said that the complainant has hired the services of the opposite parties for consideration. The relief of payment of gratuity or for arrears of salary cannot be granted in favour of the complainant for he is not a consumer. Even otherwise, such reliefs are not contemplated under Sec. 14(1)(a) to (d) of the Act. It may be stated here that prior to attaining the superannuation age, the complainant was suspended and during suspension period he retired on 31.8.89 as he had attained the superannuation age i.e. 58 years. A criminal case is pending against him and in accordance with Rule 170(A) of the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, he cannot be paid anything more than the provisional pension which in this case was sanctioned as 75% of the pension. It has categorically been stated by the opposite parties that as soon as the criminal case is decided and he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him, it will be paid to him. Be that as it may the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Sec. 2(1)(d) of the Act and, therefore, he cannot maintain the complaint. The District Forum was, therefore, right in dismissing the complaint as not maintainable. The order dated 28.1.92, is therefore, affirmed. The appeal is devoid of force and it is accordingly dismissed. As the appellant has not appeared, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.