HARYANA STATE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD vs I.P. Chauhan

THIS revision petition is filed with the delay of 435 days. The reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, inter alia, are as follows:

THE order of the State Commission was passed on 7.8.2007. The dealing hand discussed the matter on 15.10.2007 with the Counsel. Though the copy of the order was received a month ago i.e. on 17.9.2007, on 10.11.2007, it was found that copies of the order of the lower Fora are not available and efforts were made to collect the same. The efforts were made continuously for securing copies and preparing the record of the case. They requested the State Commission from 13.3.2008 to 25.9.2008 to return the file of the District Forum and finally instructions were completed on 12.1.2009 enabling him to file this revision petition.

IN support of their contention, they have stated that the petitioner is a electricity distribution company under the control of the State Government and they have quoted judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Ors., III (1996) CLT 62 (SC)=1996 (3) SCC 132, and in the matter of State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and Ors., III (2005) SLT 455=II (2005) CCR 47 (SC)=(2005) 3 SCC 752, wherein it was held that the State Government departments due to bureaucratic methodology, there is delay with the note making, file pushing and passing on the back ethos, etc. but, the petitioner in this case is not a Government department. The petitioner in this case is a State Agricultural Marketing Board (for short Board''), which is an autonomous Board created under a statute, which does not have to refer the files to the Government and it can take independent decisions. Further as it was a party before the Fora below, it would have all the records with them or with their Counsel. So the reasons given by the revision petitioner are not at all convincing to enable us to condone this abnormal delay of 435 days. Hence this revision petition can be dismissed on the grounds of delay alone. Even so, we have considered the matter on merits. The factual matrix of this case in brief are that the complainant is a retired District Marketing Enforcement Officer of the petitioner. The petitioner had ordered deduction of Rs. 95,941 from his pension funds. This amount included recovery of Rs. 40,608 on account of alleged amount for the purchase of tarpaulins by the Market Committee, Kaithal of which the complainant was Secretary during the period 1981 -82 and 1982 -83. The stand of the petitioner was contested by the complainant stating that the said surcharge is illegal, as he has challenged the same in the Court of Sub -Judge, Kaithal which held it to be null and void. Further the appeal filed against the said order by the opposite party had been dismissed. Thereafter, RSA filed by the petitioner in the High Court has been dismissed. Accordingly, he is entitled to get this amount refunded along with interest @ 18% per annum from 1.4.2004 up to the date of payment.

IT is his further case that the complainant had taken loan of Rs. 1,25,000 for purchase of car along with interest @ 10% per annum as per the order dated 3.11.1995 from the petitioner. As per Clause 6 of the sanction order, the opposite party can charge @ 4% penal interest, in case the car was not purchased and mortgaged by the complainant with the opposite party. As he did not mortgage the car with the Marketing Committee, it was entitled to charge penalty @ 4% per annum only whereas he has been charged interest @ 10% and a sum of Rs. 55,333 had been deducted from his pension benefits illegally. Therefore, it was prayed that the petitioner be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 95,941 along with interest @ 18% per annum from 1.4.2004 till realization. In addition, he claimed Rs. 10,000 as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment caused to him.

THE District Forum held that insofar as the deduction of Rs. 40,608 on account of alleged surcharge amount is concerned, unless the order of the District Judge has been set aside by the High Court, the petitioner cannot take the amount of Rs. 40,608 from the pensionary benefit. It also held that the complainant has brought to the notice of the petitioner in case of two officers, namely Secretary of the Board and the Secretary of the Marketing Committee, no penal interest has been charged by the petitioner Board. However District Forum held that they are not concerned with those officers but Board cannot charge penal interest from the complainant over and over 4%, as agreed between the parties. Therefore, charging of penal interest at the rate of 10%, from the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Accordingly, it ordered as follows: "(a) That OP shall refund Rs. 40,608 to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 10% p. a. from the date of its deduction till payment i.e. with effect from 1.4.2004;

(b) That OP shall deduct penal interest at the rate of 4% on the amount of the loan and shall refund the balance amount to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 10% p. a. from the date of its deduction till payment i.e. 1.4.2004 till payment."

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the State Commission. Before the State Commission it came to light that the High Court has dismissed the RSA, filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner has no case to deduct the amount of Rs. 40,608 from pension payable to the complainant. Similarly, the petitioner cannot charge higher than 4% penal interest from the complainant.

IN view of the concurrent decisions of the Fora below and in view of the fact that no new ground has been urged before us which were not urged before the Fora below, which considered the matter in great detail and passed well reasoned orders, we do not see any merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed both on the grounds of delay as well as on merits.

THE petitioner is directed to comply with the order of the State Commission within a period of four weeks from the date of this order failing which it shall pay Rs. 10,000 as cost to the respondent. Revision Petition dismissed.