SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES MADHUBANI Vs. ABDUL SALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent South Central Railways.

(2.) Very briefly, undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant joined the services of the Railways way back in 1945 and since he was a temporary clerk and subsequently promoted as Jr. Accountant in 1962. In the year 1964, he was transferred to Hubly where he continued to work till 1970 but when his request for transfer near his home town was not considered favourably, he gave a conditional resignation, which was not accepted. Consequently, he tendered an unconditional resignation in 1970, which was accepted in May 1970. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that when he applied for pension under Scheme brought into force by the respondent Railways, he was not given any pension. It is in these circumstances, that a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties found that it is not a consumer dispute. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) Today the case was fixed for final hearing, it was fixed in the presence of the learned Counsel for the appellant, yet despite knowledge of date, he is not present. The learned Counsel for the respondent is present. After hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent and perusal of the material on record, we go on to dispose of the case.