Karnataka

Gadag

CC/127/2019

Mardansab S/o Rahimansab Signekoppa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager,Syndicate Bank Gadag and others - Opp.Party(s)

M.C. Hittalmani

31 Dec 2020

ORDER

-::O R D E R::-

 

BY: SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT.

 

1.       The complainant has filed this complaint claiming direction to the OPs to pay F.M.A for the period from 01.12.1997 to 31.12.2017 to an extent of Rs.58,619/- to be credited to SB A/c No.12072030000381 and litigation charges against OP No.1 and 2.

 

-::Brief facts of the case are as under::-

 

2.      The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is a retired employee of Railway Department from 31.03.1997 as a O.S/Gr.I and entitled  to  receive  Fixed  Medical  Allowance  w.e.f.  01.12.1997 in terms of Railway Board’s directives.  But with reference to the letter dated 14.12.2017, the OP No.2 arranged payment of Fixed Medical Allowance for the period from 14.12.2017 and onwards.  With respect to the same, complainant has given a letter to the OP No.2 on 07.06.52018, OP No.2 has shown negative attitude.  Thereafter, complainant sent a legal notice on 17.07.2019 and the same was received by OP No.1 and 2 on 18/19.07.2019, but they failed to take positive steps, which is a deficiency of service.  Hence, the complainant constrained to file this complaint claiming to pay F.M.A for the period from 01.12.1997 to 31.12.2017 to an extent of Rs.58,619/- to be credited to SB A/c No.12072030000381 and litigation against OP No.1 and 2.

 

3.       Registered the complaint and notice was ordered, as such OP No.1 and 3 present before the Commission and filed written version, but OP No.2 remained absent.  The contents of written version filed by OP No.1 and 3 are as follows.

Written Version of OP No.1

The OP No.1 contended that, the complaint is not maintainable against this OP either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed as complaint is totally devoid of merits.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has not mentioned the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 and therefore, the question of deficiency of service against them does not arise at all as OP No.1 is only a pension disbursing authority.  The complainant has issued a notice to OP No.2 in respect of payment of Fixed Medical Allowance, the same is suitably replied by OP No.2 on 16.08.2019 stating that, FMA arrears are already paid from the date of submission of undertaking Form.  As per the OM No.4/02/2019 P and PW (D) 42694 dated 01.07.2019 mentioning that, pensioners retired before 01.12.1997 did not exercise the option of FMA immediately after the issue of OM dated 19.12.1997 would not entitle to FMA w.e.f. 01.12.1997.  In spite of that, the complainant knowingly filed a false complaint against OP No.1 and 2 to harass them. 

 

 

It is further submitted that, complainant very well know that, he is not entitled to receive FMA from 01.12.1997.  The complainant is retired on 31.03.1997.  The complainant had to opt for the FMA and had to undertake at the time of issue of OM.  In view of the above said OM dated 19.12.1997, those who retired before 01.12.1997 did not exercise the option for FMA immediately after the issue of OM dated 19.12.1997.  However, they may be allowed FMA with effect from the date of application for FMA, the same clearly goes to shows that, the complainant is not entitled to receive FMA immediately after the issue of OM dated 19.12.1997 w.e.f. 01.12.1997.  It is further submitted that, it was the duty of OP No.3 to make clarify the complainant regarding FMA.  Instead of giving clarification to the complainant, OP No.3 gave an evasive even though the notice received from the complainant.  The competent authority clearly clarified and sent OM to OP No.3.  Therefore, there is a gross negligence on the part of OP No.3 towards the complainant.  OP No.1 is a pension disbursing authority, it has paid the FMA from the date of submission of undertaking Form by the complainant.  Therefore, absolutely there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.1 and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

Written Version of OP No.3

The OP No.3 contended that, the complaint is not maintainable against this OP either in law or on facts, the same is liable to be dismissed.  It is submitted that, the complainant made a representation by letter dated 04.10.2017 to OP No.3, the same was converted as a case pertaining to Pension Adalat during 2017 and the representation dated 04.10.2017 was disposed off advising the complainant to approach the Pension Drawing Branch to submit the revised undertaking Form for FMA as the complainant retired on 31.03.1997.  The complainant is not alleging for non-payment of FMA but, the complainant is aggrieved by the payment of revised FMA.  As per the PPO and the calculation of working sheet of arrears clearly indicates that the complainant is receiving FMA and the OP No.3 while disposing the representation dated 04.10.2017 clearly indicated that the complainant should approach the Pension Drawing Branch with the revised undertaking from the Format which was enclosed for the benefit of complainant.  It is further submitted that, if it was a case of non-payment of FMA altogether, the complainant had a liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble CAT under Sec.14 of the CAT Act, 1985.  Therefore, this OP is not a necessary party to the case on hand and hence there is no deficiency of service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and filed 11 documents.  The Senior Manager of OP No.1 and Chief Staff & Welfare Inspector/Sr.DPO of OP No.3 filed their respective affidavit evidence and 02 documents have been produced.

 

COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
C-1	Letter from OP
C-2	Letter from complainant to OP No.1
C-3	Letter from complainant to OP No.1
C-4	Letter from complainant to OP
C-5	Letter from OP to complainant
C-6	Revised undertaking Form
C-7	Legal notice
C-8 & 9	Postal receipts
C-10 & 11	Postal Acknowledgements

 

OP FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
OP-1	OM of Central Government
OP-2	Authorization Memo

 

5.     On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudication which are as follows:

1.       Whether the Complainant proves that, the OPs have     committed deficiency of service?

2.       What order?

 

6.      Our Answer to the above points are:-

1.  

                     

2.  

 

REASONS

7.      Point No-1:- Since both the points are identical and interlinked with each other and hence, we proceed both together.   

8.      The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs seeking relief to receive the arrears of FMA from the OPs.  The complainant retired on 31.063.1997.  After retirement, Department got the GO stating that, the pensioners and family pensioners are entitled for the benefit of medical allowance of Rs.100/- per month which was in force from 01.12.1997, which was claimed by the complainant, but complainant did not received the same till date.  This is the complaint against the OPs.

9.       On the other hand, OPs stated that, if the complainant is entitled for the same, he should have approach the pension drawing branch for the same as per the OM.  They further submits that, they have already directed the complainant to approach for the same and they have not made any deficiency in service.

10.     On going through the records on file, it is an undisputed fact that, the complainant is an employee of OPs Department and it is also an admitted fact that, the Government Order issued on 01.152.1997 for the FMA as per the records shows that, the complainant is also entitled for the same as per the orders and OM that, he is entitled for the benefit of the same, which was effect from 01.12.1997 and same has been demanded by the complainant, it shows that, there is no much dispute between the parties.  Both the parties have to extend their hands for receiving of benefits from the concerned authority.  Complainant is the employee of the OPs Department and OPs have to forward the letter to the concerned authority with the Co-operation of the complainant and complainant also has to furnish all the documents and the application to the OPs and also to the concerned branch.  Hence, we answer Point No.1 is in partly Affirmative.

11.     Point No.2:-        For the reasons and discussion made above we proceed to pass the following:-

6698606.  

1.       The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.

 

2.       OPs are directed to Co-operate with the complainant for claiming arrears of FMA.

3.       Complainant also directed to claim FMA with Pension Drawing Branch with the Co-operation of OPs.

 

4.  Parties to bear their own costs.

 

5.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.  

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 31^st day of December-2020)

 

         (Shri B.S.Keri)                                (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

             MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT