2013 (7) TMI 988 - SC - Indian Laws

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Entitlement for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits of Government Servant - The appellant joined Health Department, of the respondent State, as Medical Officer and took voluntary retirement. Appellant claimed that he had not been paid all his retiral benefits, and penal rent for the said period had also been deducted from his dues of retiral benefits without giving any show cause notice to him. Appellant made various representations, however, he was not granted any relief by the State authorities. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Whether government servant fall under the definition of a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act - HELD THAT - it is evident that by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act. Therefore, Shri Narendra Hooda, learned Senior AAG, Haryana has made a statement that All the dues for which the appellant had been entitled to had already been paid and the penal rent has also been dispensed with and the State is not going to charge any penal rent. If the State has already charged the penal rent, it will be refunded to the appellant within a period of two months. The Appeal stands disposed of.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Definition and scope of "consumer" under the Act.
3. Entitlement of government servants to approach Consumer Forums for service-related disputes.
4. Payment of retiral benefits and penal rent.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of Consumer Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
The primary issue raised was whether the Consumer Forums constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, have jurisdiction to entertain service-related disputes of government servants. The judgment emphasized that jurisdiction is a legislative function and cannot be conferred by consent or by a superior court. If a court or tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, any decree passed would be a nullity. This principle was supported by references to several precedents, including United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen and Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra.

Definition and Scope of "Consumer" under the Act
The Act defines a "consumer" as a person who buys goods or avails services for consideration. The judgment clarified that the Act was enacted to protect consumers' interests against unfair trade practices and deficiencies in goods and services. It was noted that a government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. The court referenced previous judgments, such as Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, to highlight that the Act is intended for transactions involving the purchase of goods or services for consideration.

Entitlement of Government Servants to Approach Consumer Forums for Service-Related Disputes
The court concluded that government servants cannot approach Consumer Forums for disputes related to service conditions, payment of gratuity, or other retiral benefits. Such matters should be addressed through appropriate forums like State Administrative Tribunals or Civil Courts. The judgment cited cases like Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. Santosh Kumar Sahoo and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani, which supported the view that statutory functions and service conditions do not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

Payment of Retiral Benefits and Penal Rent
The appellant claimed that his retiral benefits were not fully paid and that penal rent was deducted without notice. The State's counsel asserted that all dues had been settled and that the penal rent issue had been resolved. The court accepted this statement and directed that any penal rent already charged should be refunded to the appellant within two months. Consequently, no further orders were deemed necessary on this matter.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that government servants are not "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and cannot seek redressal for service-related disputes through Consumer Forums. The appropriate forums for such grievances are State Administrative Tribunals or Civil Courts. The appeal was disposed of with directions to refund any penal rent charged to the appellant.

← Previous Next →