SHEO PD.JAIN vs Director, Local Bodies

REVISION Petition under Section 17(b) against an order made under Section 27 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the Act) and the appeals under Section 15 against orders made under Section 14 of the Act involve identical facts and give rise to common grievance of the complainants. These were, therefore, heard together and are now disposed of by this common order.

SHRI Sheo Pd. Jain, petitioner in Revision Petition No. 65/2001 and SHRI Khairati Ram and SHRI Chandu Singh Verma, appellants in Appeal Nos. 1252 of 2001 and 1275 of 2001 respectively are the lowly paid retired employees of Nagar Parishad, Alwar. Although they stood retired from their employment in the Nagar Parishad long back and were also paid retiral benefits but not to their satisfaction. The cause of their common dissatisfaction was non-payment of the correct amounts of interest and other amounts due to them. They, therefore, filed their complaints under Section 12 of the Act before District Forum, Alwar. Whereas SHRI Sheo Pd. Jain, petitioners Complaint No. 155 of 1996 was decided vide order dated 14.8.1996 directing computation of interest on the amount in his Provident Fund Account as per directions given in the order, the complaints of S/SHRI Khairati Ram Dhobi and Chandu Singh Verma were decided vide orders of the even date i.e., 2.8.2001 directing the payment of the determined and to be determined amount of interest to them. Since the basic order made by the District Forum in Sheo Pd. Jains complaint was not complied with, he moved an application before the District Forum for enforcement of such orders by recourse to provisions contained in Section 27 of the Act. His such application and S/Shri Khairati Rams and Chandu Singh Vermas complaints were taken up together for hearing and were disposed of by the District Forum vide its impugned orders.

The common grievance of the petitioner and the complainants was that although their entitlement to interest payable on their retiral benefits were thoroughly got examined by the Forum by a well qualified Accountant of the Medical and Health Services, who was appointed as Commissioner of Accounts in their cases but the District Forum erred in not accepting the well reasoned report of the Commissioner.

AN examination of the proceedings of the complaints in all the three cases disclosed that since accounting dispute was involved in these matters, the District Forum had appointed Shri Daya Sindu Sharma, Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the Chief Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital as Commissioner of Accounts with consent of both the parties. Shri Sharma in his detailed report dated 2.3.2001 mentioned that with the help of the staff of the respondents, he had closely examined the relevant record of the payments made by their employers to the petitioner/appellants including the deductions by the employers on account of the share of the appellants to the Contributory Provident Fund. He also examined the extracts from the General Provident Funds as produced by the respondent before him. In the detailed calculation sheets prepared by him and submitted along with his report,he had mentioned all the relevant particulars of payments, withdrawals, deductions, etc. In preparing such calculation sheets, he had taken into account the calculation sheets, as prepared by the respondent and submitted before him. It was after such detailed scrutiny of the relevant record that after giving set-off of the amount already paid, the arrear of interest payable to S/Shri Sheo Pd. Jain (revision petitioner) came to Rs. 3,897/-, to Khairati Ram Dhobi (Appeal No. 1252 of 2001) Rs. 12,273/- and to Chandu Singh Verma (Appeal No. 1275 of 2001) Rs. 1,21,136/- up to March 31, 2002. The calculations made by the Commissioner of Accounts was based on GPF sheets supplied to him by the Municipal Council, Alwar after verification from their records. The Commissioner had made the charts and the calculation sheets ANnexure Nos. 1, 2, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 6, 6A, 7 and 7A and 8 to 14 to his report (The matters of 4 other persons were also referred to the Commissioner along with the present petitioner and appellants). The District Forum, however, made its own scrutiny of the charts and statements submitted by the parties before the Commissioner of Accounts and came to the conclusion that the respondent had made short payment to the present petitioner-appellants and thus rendered deficient services to them. But taking into account that the Municipality Service Pension Rules, 1989 were made applicable to the employees of Municipalities w.e.f. 1.10.1987 vide notification dated 1.10.1989, and as per Rules 7 and 8 of the above mentioned rules in the cases of the employees of the Municipalities, opting for the benefit of the rules, their contributions to the provident fund was to be transferred to the pension fund and therefrom to be invested in Government Securities to earn interest at the same rates which was payable to other Government servant, the District Forum directed the respondent to recalculate interest payable at the opening balance as on 1.4.1980 in the case of each of the present petitioner and appellants within 20 days and the interest payable in each case be paid to them by 31.8.2001.

IT was urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellants that once their claims had been got examined by the Commissioner of Accounts and no mistake and error in his report could be pointed out by the respondent, the District Forum should have accepted his report and ordered accordingly. IT was further submitted that the directions given by the learned District Forum, opens the doors of the controversy between the parties once again, upon the respondent further delaying the payment of the legitimate amounts due to these old pensioners with feeble physiques and failing health due to their advanced age. IT was further urged that in case the learned District Forum wanted to get some clarifications on some points of accounts, it would have called for a supplementary report from the Commissioner of Accounts and, thus, after taking into account such additional/supplementary report, could have ordered the payment of ascertained sums to them. Taking into account the facts stated above and looking to the fact that the aggrieved persons before us were not in good shape, mentally and physically due to their old age and failing heath, we directed that the correctness of the report of the Commissioner of Accounts be closely examined by the AAO on deputation to this Commission from the Director, Treasury and Accounts (Rajasthan) Office. The AAO has reported that the calculations made by the Commissioner of Accounts in the cases of the present petitioner and appellants were correct. In view of such exercise made by the AAO, attached to this Commission, we direct that the report of the Commissioner of Accounts be and is hereby accepted in the cases of the present petitioner and appellants. In the result, the revision petition and the appeals are allowed and impugned orders in them are modified in the following manner: (1)(i) In Revision Petition No. 65/2001 the non-petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,897/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.4.2001 within two months from the date of service of this order on them, on the expiry of which period, in the event of non-compliance of the above order, the District Forum shall proceed to realise the amount payable through the modes of Sections 25 and 27 of C.P. Act, 1986 for which purpose this case stands remanded to the District Forum. (ii) The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 12.12.2003. (2) In Appeal Nos. 1252 of 2001 and 1275 of 2001, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,273/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.4.2002 to Shri Khairati Ram Dhobi, appellant and a sum of Rs. 1,21,136/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.4.2002 to Shri Chandu Singh Verma, appellant within two months from the date of service of this order on them. (3) Cost of the petition and the appeals shall be on parties throughout. Ordered accordingly.