D.B.WANI vs M.S.RAJYA BAZAR SAMITI

THIS Revision Petition arises out of the order of the Commission allowing the appeal and dismissing the complaint of the petitioner/complainant.

BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that petitioner was an employee of the respondent No. 2 Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC), Navapur, District Dhule and retired from there on 30.11.87. In this job, he was a beneficiary of Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme. Respondent No. 1 floated a scheme for retiring employees of APMC, introducing a Pension Scheme from 1.7.1991. This scheme envisaged remission of contributory provident amount to respondent No. 1. The rules on the subject envisaged its extension/coverage to cover eligible retired employees under the rules. Petitioner was one such person. Unrebutted fact is that he opted for the pension scheme on 3.12.1991 and 24.12.1991. Since that was not accompanied by the accumulated CPF amount, the request was not entertained. It appears, finally on the behest of Lokayukta of Maharashtra, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was despatched to respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1 in August, 1996; this was returned within a fortnight by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. In these circumstances the petitioner approached the District Forum, who after hearing all the parties and after holding the petitioner to be a consumer and respondent No. 1 deficient in rendering services, directed respondent No. 2 to remit the CPF amount along with interest @ 12% from 1.12.1987 to 31.12.1997 to respondent No. 1, directing respondent No. 1 to reconsider the case of the petitioner and to give pension to the petitioner for the above mentioned period with interest @ 12% and from then onwards give pension regularly and cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be given to the petitioner by respondent No. 2. Failure to comply with the above shall entail payment of interest @ 18%. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against this order which was allowed on the ground that this is not a consumer dispute. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed this revision petition. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is very much a consumer both vis-a-vis respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2. Since respondent No. 1 survives on the contribution deducted in the form of P.F. and received/sent by APMC. Respondent No. 1 thus rendering service in the case to the petitioner. Petitioner was contributing towards C.P.F., a new scheme was introduced and respondent No. 2 sent the money to respondent No. 1 who did not entertain it contrary to the rules of the Scheme and thus depriving the petitioner of the pension benefits. This clearly is showing deficiency in rendering services to the petitioner. He also relied upon Rule 4 of the Rules made under the Pension Scheme for the employees of APMC in Maharashtra State. The rules empowers the ad hoc Committee administering the scheme to give relaxation with the approval of Director Marketing of the State. According to him, reasoning given by the District Forum to accept him as a consumer is as per law and the State Commission erred in not accepting him a consumer. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 that the Pension Scheme applied to the retired employees only if it exercised the option and the concerned APMC sent the money collected under C.P.F. In this present case option was exercised by the petitioner in December, 1991 but money and that to only Rs. 10,000/- came only in August, 1996 which was returned. The petitioner has not hired the services in any way of respondent No. 1 hence he cannot be consumer qua respondent No. 1 since no money came till date either from respondent No. 2 or the petitioner. There was no question of rendering any services and in such a case where is the question of deficiency in service in such circumstances. He also cited (2001) 6 SCC 61 in his support that the petitioner is not eligible for the pension.

In his written reply filed by APMC Novapur, it is stated that pension of any servant is to be decided by the State Government and who are a necessary party. In any case under the scheme floated by respondent No. 1, the petitioner did not opt in time, hence he lost his right for pension. Even in the original complaint, the petitioner has not given any date of exercising of the option in favour of the pension. They still sent the proposal and money to the respondent No. 1, who returned it. There is no deficiency on their part hence revision petition needs to be dismissed.

WE have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. The only point of law involved is - whether petitioner is a consumer qua respondent No. 1. Admittedly, petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 2 who retired on 30.11.1987. A Pension Scheme was formulated for the employees of APMC through an ad hoc Committee of respondent No. 1. Rules were framed under this Scheme called "Maharashtra Rajya Bazar Samiti Karamchari Seva Nivruti Rules, 1998" and came into force from 1.1.1986. Rule 2(5) of these Rules reads as under : "The employees of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee retiring after 1st day of January, 1986 but before the 1st October, 1998 and exercising the option of electing to be governed by this scheme, shall be eligible for the benefits of the scheme only if the relevant Market Committee or the concerned retired employee sends the amount of contribution to the scheme within the period of two months from the date of introduction of this scheme.

THIS sub-rule spells out three elements to be eligible for pension for the employees who have retired : (i) person should have retired after 1.1.1986 but before 1.10.1988. (ii) exercise his option for the scheme. (iii) Scheme shall become applicable to them only if the relevant APMC or the concerned retired employee sends the amount of contribution within a period of two months from the date of introduction of the scheme.

From the material on record especially the complaint filed before the District Forum on 28.6.1996 and affidavit filed on 30.5.1997.in support of the complaint, there is no mention of any date on which option was exercised. Even if we concede about it "the two dates i.e. 3.12.1991 and 24.12.1991 on which the petitioner is alleged to have exercised the option for the pension scheme as per order of the District Forum, we see that this option has not been exercised within two months of the introduction of the scheme i.e. 1.7.1991 and secondly the condition precedent is that applicant shall get covered under the scheme only if it is accompanied by amount of CPF. Thus, we see that petitioner has failed to fulfil these two conditions under Rule 2(5) of Scheme. We are unable to appreciate as to what prevented the petitioner to collect the CPF amount and send it to respondent No. 1 along with the option in favour of a pension scheme. He failed to do so for over four years i.e. from 31.11.1987 to 3.12.1991. It is true that respondent No. 1 is running a welfare scheme, but its driving force is the money received from its members be it individuals (in the case of already retired employees) of APMC''s. Since the contribution in the family CPF was not sent to respondent No. 1 either by petitioner or respondent No. 2, we find no relationship established between them or hiring of the services of respondent No. 1 either by respondent No. 2 or by the petitioner. Just because 1st respondent''s administrative expenses come out of the management of funds of the beneficiaries. Petitioner does not become a consumer vis-a-vis respondent No. 1. Had either of them i.e. petitioner or respondent No. 2 remitted the money or promised to pay the money to respondent No. 1 only then they could have been deemed to have hired the services of respondent No. 1. In the instant case not only there is no promise to pay, there has been no payment for over 5 years of CPF to respondent No. 1. We also find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 should have used its discretion under Rule 4. Rule 4 is as follows : "4. Power of relaxation : Where the ad hoc Committee is satisfied that the operation of any of the provisions of this scheme causes or is likely to cause hardship in the case of any employee of the Committee or class of employees, it may relax the condition with the approval of the Director of Marketing."

Firstly without receiving contribution of the petitioner no case was made out for seeking relaxation and secondly non-exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be a subject-matter of consumer dispute. In the present case relationship of consumer exists between petitioner and respondent No. 2. It is the respondent No. 2 who maintained the CPF of the petitioner. He has been deficient in rendering service. He neither paid CPF to the petitioner nor remitted it to the respondent No. 1 for whatever reason in this case, paucity of funds with respondent No. 2. Petitioner is not concerned. It is for the respondent No. 2 to organise funds to give to the petitioner.

THUS, we find that petitioner cannot be said to be a consumer qua respondent No. 1. He has not hired his services either. The petitioner certainly was a consumer qua respondent No. 2 who has been deficient in rendering service. To this extent only the petition is allowed. The contention of respondent No. 2 that pension can be given by the State Government and they should have been made a party is of no consequence to us at this stage. It has been held that a body deducting PF renders a service to its members/employees. It is in this context that respondent No. 2 is directed to pay the full amount of CPF deducted, plus its own contribution and interest thereon as per its own rules along with interest @ 12% from 1.12.1987 till the date of payment along with cost of Rs. 1,000/-. They are further directed to make the payment within eight weeks of this order. Revision Petition disposed of.