STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 12.6.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon whereby the complaint filed by Sumitra Devi -complainant against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 has been allowed.

(2.) THE brief facts as stated in the complaint, in order to focus the controversy involved in the present appeal, are that the complainant, who was employed as Block Education Officer in the Haryana Education Department, despite being under suspension, was appointed as Principal in Government Senior Secondary School, Tauru on 16.6.1998, where she worked upto 20.7.1998, on which date she received a communication from the District Education Officer, Gurgaon informing her that she had been promoted erroneously and was asked to leave her charge immediately. During the period of suspension she retired on completion of the age of 58 years on 31.5.1999. She submitted her pension papers. She, being under suspension, the amount in her credit in the General Provident Fund and the amount of Group Insurance Scheme was released to her but her gratuity and pension etc. were withheld. Forced by these circumstances, she filed the present complaint wherein apart from the pension admissible to her, she also claimed Commuted Leave Encashment and Gratuity besides the new pay scale which came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1996.

(3.) WHILE controverting the stand of the complainant, the opposite parties in their reply pleaded that in the year 1995, the complainant while working as Block Education Officer at Farrukh Nagar, was suspended due to her involvement in a criminal case bearing F.I.R. No. 94 dated 5.10.1994 registered under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120 -B, I.P.C. with Police Station, Farrukh Nagar. It was further averred by them that her G.P.F. amount and the amount under G.I.S. was released to her on 14.10.1999 and 13.7.1999 respectively. It was further averred that the service book of the complainant was still with the Directorate for necessary inquiry and for that reason she could not be granted new pay scale as her conduct and work was found to be unsatisfactory. The complaint was also resisted on the ground that she being not a consumer under the provisions of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), her complaint was not entertainable before the District Forum and for that reason it has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute raised in the complaint. The other pleas of locus standi, the complainant not being consumer and jurisdiction of the District Forum to try the complaint, were also raised.