B NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We do not find any good basis for interfering with the order of the Chittoor District Forum dismissing the complaint C. D. C. No.198/1998 by order dated 23.3.1999 which is sought to be questioned by the complainant in this appeal. The complainant, who is the appellant in this appeal, is present in person. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Cuddapah, who is the respondent in this appeal and opposite party in that C D C , is represented by Mr. G. Bhaskar Rao, Enforcement Officer at Tirupati working in the Provident Fund Department. The appellant/complainant states that he could not attend the Chittoor District Forum on 23,3.1999 when his C. D. C. was posted because he was not well. He has produced the doctor certificate to that effect. However the District Forum, going through the papers which were before it, dismissing the complaint after hearing the opposite party observing as follows : "heard the respondent. Exs. B1 and B2 marked. Exs. B1 and B2 show that the loan amount of Rs.75,000/- was sanctioned. Therefore, it is apparent as to why the complainant is absent there is no cause for grant of damages and costs. Complaint dismissed. " We have to observe that the advance amount sanctioned to the appellant/complainant was not Rs.75,000/- but only Rs.50,000/- and that the Chittoor District Forum was wrong in observing that Rs.75,000/- was sanctioned by the respondent/opposite party to the appellant/ complainant. The amount sanctioned was not a loan but advance payment. The record of the District Forum is before us and we find there from that the application of the appellant/ complainant was only for Rs.50,000/- and that the same was made on 28.4.1998.

(2.) The appellant/complainant is an employee of M/s. Nutrine Confectionary Co. Ltd. at Chittoor and he is a member of the Provident Fund Scheme of that Company. He is entitled to draw advance from his P. F. Account for purchasing plots and for constructing houses. He applied for the advance of Rs.50,000/- for constructing a house. The grievance of the appellant was that he was being harassed by the Provident Fund Department and the concerned officials by asking him to produce 10 (1) adangal to establish his right over the plot in which he was proposing to construct the house for which he applied for the advance. According to him his plot of land was in Piler and within the town limits of Piler and that it did not form part of any agricultural land and that layout was already sanctioned by the concerned Authorities of Piler Gram Panchayat and that, therefore, 10 (1) adangal entries will not be there in respect of that plot because no agriculture was done in it. As the amount was not sanctioned in spite of his several representations, he approached the Chittoor District Forum by way of the present complaint on 29.8.1998, The record of the District Forum shows that soon thereafter the respondent/ opposite party sanctioned the advance of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant and communicated the same to him by letter dated 17.9.1998 which was received by him. The first instalment of Rs.25,000/- was released to him soon thereafter and the second instalment of Rs.25,000/- was also released to him on 5.2.1999; that is admitted by the appellant who is present in person. Thus the main grievance of the appellant no longer subsists.

(3.) However the appellant submits that because of the long delay in the release of the amount and because he was required to produce unnecessary adangal copies he was mentally harassed and put to hardship and that he should be compensated for the same. There is no doubt that when subscribers to Provident Fund apply for eligible advances the Provident Fund Authorities concerned should not unnecessarily delay the sanctioning and releasing of the amounts especially when the amounts are required for medical or educational purposes or even house construction purposes, and any inordinate delay of months together would defeat the very purpose and object of such advances. We hope that the Provident Fund Authorities concerned will keep this in view because Provident Fund Schemes are Social Security Measures.