The Sub -Division Engineer (LAndB) vs M. Sambasiva Rao

NO one is present for the respondent despite service. On last date of hearing also no one was present either for the petitioner or for the respondent despite service of notice on the petitioners. The advocate who was representing the petitioners has expired and intimation in this regard was given to this Commission by a counsel on the last date of hearing. In these circumstances, when no one is appearing either for the petitioners or for the respondent despite service of notice on them, I proceed to decide the revision petition on its merits.

THE petitioners allegedly allotted a staff quarter to the complainant on out of turn basis and the said quarter was occupied by him on 18 -02 -2005. The license fee for the aforesaid quarter was to be deducted from the salary of the complainant. On 22 -02 -2005 the servant quarter was allegedly locked by the petitioners on the ground that the allotment made to the complainant had been cancelled. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking the following reliefs: "(a) to handover the keys and redeliver the possession of the staff quarter bearing No. B -2, Type -II to the complainant forthwith;

(b) to pay the compensation of Rs. 99,000/ - on account of rendering deficient services, acting negligently and on account of acting in a capricious and oppressive manner by its employees;

(c) to pay the costs of the complaint to reimburse the court fee paid."

The complaint was resisted by the petitioners, on the ground that the quarter in question was allotted to the complainant by oversight though his turn as per seniority had not matured for allotment of a staff quarter. It was further stated in the reply that on realizing the mistake the allotment was cancelled on 21 -02 -2005, but the complainant refused to receive the cancellation letter, which was then pasted on the door of the staff quarter. It was further stated that on coming to know of the cancellation of the allotment the complainant broke open the lock forcibly on 22 -02 -2005 and a complaint in this regard was also lodged with the police. The premises was then inspected by the police and the quarter was again locked.

VIDE its order dated 01 -04 -2005 the concerned District Forum directed the petitioner to restore the possession of the quarter to the complainant and also pay to him compensation amounting to Rs. 1,000/ - along with court fee of Rs. 100/ -.

BEING aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioners approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 25 -07 -2005 the State Commission disposed of the appeal by directing that the complainant will continue in possession of the quarter till an alternative arrangement was made as per his seniority and thereafter he will shift to another quarter which might be allotted to him as per his seniority. Being aggrieved the petitioners are before this Commission by way of this revision petition. It is not in dispute that the complainant was an employee of BSNL and it was in his capacity as an employee that the staff quarter was allotted to him. Since there was a relationship of employer and the employee between BSNL and the complainant and the staff quarter in question was allotted to the complainant in his capacity as an employee, it would be difficult to say that there was a relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and BSNL. It is settled legal proposition that a consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matters relating to the service conditions of an employee. If the complainant had any grievance on account of cancellation of the allotment made to him he could have either an administrative remedy or he could file a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the allotment.

IN Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. v. Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., : (2013) 10 SCC 136, the appellant before the Hon''ble Supreme Court joined Health Department of the Government of Haryana as a Medical Officer and took voluntary retirement. Claiming that he had not been paid of his retiral benefits and penal rent had also been deducted from his dues, he filed a complaint before the Consumer Forum, Faridabad for the redressal of his grievances. The complaint, however, was dismissed on merits. Being aggrieved, he approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the complaint itself was not maintainable since he was not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant thereupon approached this Commission by way of a revision petition. The said revision petition having been dismissed he approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court after taking special leave to appeal. It was contended on behalf of the State of Haryana that service matters of a government servant cannot be dealt with by any of the forums in the hierarchy of the Consumer Protection Act. Rejecting the appeal it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that a consumer forum cannot deal with the service matters of the government servants. Reference in this regard was made to the earlier decision in Board of Secondary Education v. Santosh Kumar Sahoo : (2010) 8 SCC 353 and Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha : (2009) 8 SCC 483. The Hon''ble Supreme Court also considered its earlier decision in Bhavani (supra) and concluded as under in para 20 and 21 of the judgment. "20. In view of the above, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.

In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits."

IN view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, it would be difficult to say that the complainant was a consumer of the petitioners. The view taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the context of retiral benefits and penal rent would equally apply in a case where employee is aggrieved on account of cancellation of the staff quarter by the employer. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to cost.