DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE Vs. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, G BALACHANDRAN, RETIRED LECTURER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Director and the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education have filed W.P.(C) 10690 of 2008 praying for quashing Exts.P3 and P4. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha in OP No. A.221/2003 filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) 3859 of 2008. In that writ petition, what he seeks is a direction to pay the amount due under the order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum referred to above.

(2.) Petitioner is a retired lecturer from SD College, Alappuzha. After his retirement, he approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum by filing Ext.P1 complaint praying for a direction to pay Rs. 1,16,460.40, being the balance PF amount as on 30.9.2003 with interest, compensation and costs. Ext.P2 is the objection that was filed by the respondents before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, in which the dispute raised was regarding the amount claimed by the teacher. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum overruled the objections and passed Ext.P3 order and directed payment of Rs. 1,16,460/-. The amount was not paid. Therefore revenue recovery proceedings were initiated and Exts.P5 and P6 revenue recovery notices were issued. It is in this background the Director and the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education filed W.P.(C) 10690 of 2008 challenging Exts.P3, P5 and P6 and the teacher concerned has filed W.P.(C) 3859 of 2008 seeking expeditious recovery of the amount due.

(3.) The submission made by the learned Government Pleader is that in view of Section 2(1)(d) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a teacher is not a consumer in as much as he has been rendering service under a contract of personal service. The learned Government Pleader has also relied on the Apex Court judgment in State of Orissa v. Divisional Manager, LIC and Anr., and the judgment of this Court in Secretary, Education Department and Anr. v. T.M. Thankappan Achary and Ors.,2007 3 ILR(Ker) 555. In these two judgments, according to the learned Government Pleader, a Government employee has been held to be outside the purview of the Act in view of the definition contained in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.