SUKHVIR SINGH Vs. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Sri Shukhvir Singh retired from service as Executive Engineer in the Irrigation Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh in February, 1990. His Provident Fund Account was being maintained by the Accountant General II (Fund-54), U. P. The G. P. F. Account Number allotted to him was W. U.19733 and regular monthly deductions made from his salary should have been properly posted therein. Regular statement of accounts should also have been furnished. The Accountant General did not do so nor did he ensure correction of entries in the account even when pointed out to him. The functioning in the office of the Accountant General was most unsatisfactory resulting in great harassment of the appellant after his retirement from service. With these, and many other detailed allegations, the appellant fileda complaint before District Forum, Meerut seeking several reliefs in the matter of payment of his General Provident Fund. The complaint was dismissed by the Forum on its view that the appellant did not fall within the category of a "consumer" and the matter could not be gone into under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) We have heard Sri Sukhvir Singh who appeared before us in person. We have also heard Sri B. B. Sharma, Assistant Engineer and Sri Ramesh Chandra, Accounts Officer who appeared before us on behalf of the State of U. P. and the Accountant General, U. P. respectively.

(3.) Under the General Provident Fund (U. P.) Rules, 1985 the responsibility of maintaining the account relating to the amount of Provident Fund of a Government employee, to whom these Rules are applicable, has been assigned to the Accountant General, U. P. A look at some of the relevant Rules would show that a statutory duty has been cast upon the Accountant General in this respect. For example, there has to be an account in the name of each subscriber who, under Rule 8, may subscribe an amount which shall not be less than 10% and not more than the amount of his emoluments. Under Rule 20, when the subscriber quits the service, the amount standing to his credit becomes payable to him. The Government pays to the credit of the account of a subscriber interest at such rates as may be determined for each year by the Government of India. Rule 11 provides for it, Advance can be granted to a subscriber from the amount at his credit in the Fund under Rule 13. Annual statement of account is to be supplied to the subscriber under Rule 27. There are various other rules, which need not be mentioned, dealing with rights and liabilities of a subscriber in regard to the amount of his provident fund in these Rules. All this shows that the element of service as contemplated by the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or of any consideration therefore, so as to bring a subscriber within the definition of a 'consumer' is lacking.