VIJAY JAGANNATH INDOLIKAR Vs. MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN
LAWS(MHCDRC)-2008-7-3
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on July 01,2008

VIJAY JAGANNATH INDOLIKAR Appellant
VERSUS
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal is filed by the original complainant aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the District Forum, Sangli. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: The complainant is working as Junior Clerk in Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran. He needed Rs. 5,000 for urgent medical treatment. He applied for grant of advance of G.P.F. of Rs. 5,000 on 20.11.2006. He attached medical certificate of doctor in support of his medical application. According to the complainant, in his G.P.F. Account No. S. 1483, amount of Rs. 1,41,496 is available still he has not as yet got the said amount of Rs. 5,000 from G.P.F. respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the employees Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, respondnet No. 1. According to the complainant, respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are putting obstacles in sanctioning amount of Rs. 5,000 from his G.P.F. account. He had, therefore, filed consumer complaint in the Forum below and sought direction from the Forum to direct O.Ps. to grant him advance of Rs. 5,000 from his G.P.F. account. He also prayed for grant of Rs. 2,500 for mental agony and cost and Rs. 15,000 loss.
(2.) O .Ps. filed written statement and affidavit and pleaded that complainant is not in service for the last 33 years. According to O.Ps. he was removed from service on 10.11.2004. They admit that on 20.11.2006, he had applied for grant of advance of Rs. 5,000 from his G.P.F. But since he is not in service, the said advance cannot be given to him. According to them, after an employee is removed from service or is compulsory retired, he is not entitled under service rules to get advance from G.P.F. As per Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, under Rule 65, the Chief Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Pune held that complainant as not eligible for further service on his completion of 30 years service. The said employee was given notice by Chief Engineer retiring him prematurely by letter dated 31.7.2004. It was served on complainant on 11.8.2004. This notice period was over on 10.11.2004 and from 10.11.2004 according to O.Ps., the complainant is not in service and, therefore, he cannot be granted G.P.F. advance of Rs. 5,000 as applied by him. The O.Ps. pleaded that he is entitled to get full amount of G.P.F. on his retirement from service. For that purpose he has to fill in form No. 298 -M but complainant is not prepared to fill in that form hence whole amount of G.P.F. due in his account could not be paid to him. They further pleaded within 45 days since his compulsoy retirement, he should taken objection to that effect. He did not take that objection and, therefore, he stood compulsorily retired from service. They, therefore, pleaded that there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran. As such, they pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost.
(3.) ON the basis of affidavits and documents, the Forum below held that complainant had been compulsorily retired from service by Chief Engineer of Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran. He had not taken objection to his compulsory retirement within 45 days as per rules in force. The review was held in terms of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (especially under Rule 65 of the said rules) and invoking that rule Chief Engineer pleased to compulsory retire him from service. It held that the dispute between employee and employer regarding G.P.F. advance is not a consumer dispute and Forum below had not jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute, hence the Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint. As such, the complainant himself has come up in appeal challenging the said dismissal. We heard submissions of complainant in person and Mrs. Sangeeta Lidkar, Advocate for the respondents. We perused the impugned order and documents filed on record by the appellant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.