STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. vs H.C. Goel

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.05.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 07/905 - State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. H.C. Goel by which, appeal was partly allowed and order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent H.C. Goel retired as Chief Legal Adviser on 31.7.1988 from the office of the OP/petitioner and complainant was extended all the benefits including reimbursement of medical benefits. Complainant was operated in emergency and incurred expenses of Rs.18,965/ - in operation conducted at Surksha Nursing Home. He further submitted that he was entitled to Rs.5,000/ - per year and later on Rs.8,500/ - per year in place of submission of bills, cash memos, etc. Complainant was entitled to receive from the OP Rs.18.965/ - on account of expenditure incurred on operation and Rs.18,500/ - on account of fixed amount, but was not paid to him by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant took treatment in a non -panel hospital; hence, he was not entitled to reimbursement of Rs.18,965/ - and further submitted that complainant was not entitled to receive Rs.18,500/ - for 3 block years, as this provision was replaced by actual expenditure incurred and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.37,465/ - and further awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/ - and cost of Rs.5,000/ -. Appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed and compensation of Rs.20,000/ - was reduced to Rs.10,000/ - and rest of the order was affirmed against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that payment as per the order of learned State Commission has already been made to the respondent, but this revision petition has been filed for expunging observations in the order of the State Commission as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Revision Petition. He further submitted that learned State Commission committed error in making aforesaid observations contrary to Rules; hence, Revision Petition be allowed to this extent and objection be struck down. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that observations made by learned State Commission are in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

LEANED State Commission in paragraph 6 of the order observed as under: ''''a) The aforesaid circular referred to by ld. Counsel for the petitioner (appellant therein) was applicable to persons who are on the employment and not to ex -employees ''''.

According to the learned State Commission circular dated 8.10.1997 was applicable to persons who were in employment and not to ex -employees. Apparently, this observation is not correct. Perusal of circular dated 8.10.1997 clearly reveals that this circular is applicable to the retired employees or the employee who joins services of the Corporation from other public sector organizations and has served the Corporation for a minimum period of 2 years. Thus, it becomes clear that, in general, this circular was applicable to ex -employees of the OP and not to the serving employee of the OP except the employee who joins service from other public sector organization and served the OP for a minimum period of 2 years. In such circumstances, this observation of learned State Commission is liable to struck down.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner does not press Item No. 2 (b) of the memo of revision and admits that complainant falls within purview of consumer.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that learned State Commission committed error in observing in paragraph 8 of the order as under: ''''As regards the allegations of respondent having given legal advice to the employees against the interests of the appellant company, this was applicable only if the respondent was indulging in this activity during service of the appellant. After having retired from the appellant organization, no rule prevented him from giving any advice or otherwise ''''.

Perusal of circular dated 8.10.1997 clearly reveals that retired employee who indulges in any activity which goes against the interest of the Corporation shall be debarred from availing medical facilities after retirement. Thus, it becomes clear that learned State Commission erroneously observed in the order that after retirement, no Rule prevented to the retired employee from giving any advice against the interest of the Corporation for availing medical benefits. Whether this circular dated 8.10.1997 is in accordance with law or not is not to be seen by Consumer Fora, but has to be applied strictly and according to this circular if retired employee indulges in any activity against the interest of the Corporation, he can be debarred from availing medical facilities subject to right of appeal to CMO. Learned State Commission had committed error in observing that after retirement no Rule prevents retired employee from giving any advice or otherwise and to this extent, observations made in paragraph 8 are liable to struck down.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and observations made in paragraph 6 and 8 of the impugned order dated 26.5.2008 passed in Appeal No.07/905 - State Trading Corpn. of India Vs. H.C. Goel is set aside with no order as to costs.