PUDA vs JAI RAM

IT is an appeal against the order dated 7.5.2003 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) was Superintendent with the appellants-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) and during his service, a decision was taken by the Finance and Account Committee on its 23rd Meeting vide Item No. 23.16 PUDA proposing to construct LIG and MIG Houses at SAS Nagar for its Class-III and Class-IV employees vide office order dated 23.6.2000 vide endorsement No. PUDA-ADMN-EA-7/2000/17902-98 dated 27.6.2000 relating to Special Housing Scheme of PUDA employees at Mohali. The complainant had applied for the allotment of the MIG House at SAS Nagar, vide application dated 12.8.2000 and had paid Rs. 20,000/- to the opposite parties, vide draft No. 622915 dated 12.8.2000. Vide endorsement No. PUDA-UE-2/2002/6277 dated 22.8.2002 the complainant had been informed that he was not eligible for the allotment of a plot in the newly formed scheme of PUDA and thus appellant No. 2 (opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum) (hereinafter called opposite party No. 2) filed the application of the complainant and ordered the refund of the amount of Rs. 20,000/-. It was alleged in this communication that the retired employees were not eligible for allotment of house/plot. So the orders dated 8.8.2002 issued by the opposite parties denying the allotment of house as per his application, according to the complainant, was illegal and was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. A prayer was made that the opposite parties be directed to allot MIG house/plot in SAS Nagar to the complainant as per policy of the opposite parties. Rs. 10,000/- as compensation besides costs were also demanded by the complainant from the opposite parties. In the written statement filed by the opposite parties, it was alleged that at the time of the introduction of the new scheme the complainant was not the employee of the opposite parties as he retired on 31.12.2000 and he had applied for the plot under the new Scheme on 18.2.2002 much after the expiry of the time provided for the same. Thus, according to the opposite parties there was no deficiency in service on their part as after the retirement and as per new scheme the person who was not employee of the opposite parties, was not eligible for the allotment of the plot. It was admitted in the reply that the complainant had applied for the plot as alleged in the complaint and had deposited the amount of Rs. 20,000/- with the opposite parties. Ultimately, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record, the District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence this appeal.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and have gone through the detailed order of the District Forum and have also gone through the policy, vide which the complainant had submitted his application, for grant of LIG and MIG houses at SAS Nagar for Class-III and Class-IV employees of the PUDA and the later policy floated by the opposite parties.

WE do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. It is an admitted fact that the opposite parties had floated a scheme to construct LIG and MIG houses for Class-III and Class-IV employees at SAS Nagar, Mohali vide office order dated 23.6.2000. This Scheme was circulated by the opposite parties amongst their employees through circulars issued vide endorsement dated 27.6.2000. It is also not disputed that the complainant being an employee of the opposite parties had submitted an application dated 12.8.2000 along with demand draft of an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and the said application of the complainant was forwarded by the Estate Officer, PUDA, Jalandhar which was duly accepted by the opposite parties. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the application of the complainant was declined as he was not an employee of the opposite parties at the time of the floating of the second scheme. WE do not find this as a valid ground to dismiss the claim of the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant had filed his application under the first scheme and had deposited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as required under the scheme and at that time admittedly he was the employee of the opposite parties. The status of a person has to be seen when the applications were invited. At the time when the first scheme was floated, the complainant was an employee of the opposite parties. Any modification of the first scheme has got no effect on the status of the complainant. The opposite parties are bound by the offer, which was circulated amongst Class-III and Class-IV employees inviting the applications. The complainant fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the first scheme and this factual position is not contradicted before us also. In the modified scheme also, which has been annexed by the learned Counsel for the appellants with the appeal as Annexure A-3, a note has been appended wherein it is stated that those employees who had deposited earnest money under the earlier scheme they could apply under the new scheme and it was not necessary for them to deposit the earnest money again. In these circumstances, the complainant's claim is just and legal and is even covered under the modified scheme, which has been floated by the opposite parties regarding the allotment of house/plot to its employees. The denial of allotment of house/plot to the complainant solely on the basis that he was no longer the employee of the opposite parties at the time of the floating of the second scheme amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed in limine.