STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, PALAMAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-applicant, before the District Consumer Forum, Palamau was beneficiary under the Bihar General Provident Fund Rules, 1948 framed in exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 241 of the Government of India Act, 1935 as adopted by the India (Provisional Constitution) Order 1947. The petitioner submitted an application before the Distract Consumer Forum, Palamau at Daltonganj, claiming, he has been paid less payment of Provident Fund, whereupon, the case No. 112 of 2002 was registered. The petitioner's application was allowed vide order dated 27th August, 2002 and the said order has been challenged by filing this writ application.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent employee was a government servant and being a government servant he was required compulsorily to contribute towards the General Provident Fund as per Section 4 of the Rules of 1948. This beneficial Scheme has been framed by the. Stare Government for its employees but without charging any amount for the benefit given to the employees under Rules of 1948. Not only this, no service charges are recovered from the employees nor they are required to pay the administrative charges for running and maintaining the fund created under the Rules of 1948.

(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of State of Orissa Vs. Divisional Manager LIC and Anr., 1996 AIR(SC) 2519held that in a case where respondent was a Government servant and was bound by the Service conditions and the State was rendering services free of charge to such employee then he is not a Consumer under the definition of Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore the impugned order passed by the Consumer Forum is wholly without jurisdiction.