Back
Supreme Court of India
B.S. CHAUHAN, S.A. BOBDE, JJ.
Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat
Versus
Dir. Health Services, Haryana & Others
Civil Appeal No. 5476 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11381 of 2012)
Decided on : 11-07-2013
(b) CPC, 1908-Section 20 -Conferment of jurisdiction -Conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. (Para 7).
(c) CPC, 1908- Section 21 -Objection as to jurisdiction -An objection/issue as to jurisdiction of the Court can be raised at any stage of the proceedings- The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/ inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction- Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation- The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute- In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Para7)
Facts of the case
The appellant joined Health Department, of the respondent State, as Medical Officer on 5.6.1953 and took voluntary retirement on 28.10.1985. During the period of service, he stood transferred to another district but he retained the government accommodation, i.e. Bungalow No. B-8 from 11.5.1980 to 8.7.1981. Appellant claimed that he had not been paid all his retiral benefits, and penal rent for the said period had also been deducted from his dues of retiral benefits without giving any show cause notice to him. He filed complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad, the Forum dismissed the complaint on merits observing that his outstanding dues i.e. pension, gratuity and provident fund etc. had correctly been calculated and paid to the appellant by the State authorities. The appellant approached the State Commission which also dismissed the appeal observing that though the complaint was not maintainable as the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the appellant as he was not a "consumer" the dispute between the parties could not be redressed by the said Forum, but in view of the fact that the opposite party (State) neither raised the issue of jurisdiction before the District Forum nor preferred any appeal, order of the District Forum on the jurisdictional issue attained finality. However, there was no merit in the appeal. The appeal and review filed by him before the National Commission were dismissed. Hence this appeal before the Supreme Court.
Findings:
Held, by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a "consumer" as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1985. (Para 16).
In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the Forum under the Act for any of the retrial benefits. (Para 17).
Case law referred
1. United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213. (Para 7)
2. Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) Thr. Lrs., (1990) 1 SCC 193. (Para 8),
3. Setrucharlu Ramabhadra Raju Bahadur v. Maharaja of Jeypore, AIR 1919 PC 150; State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar Chimanlal Barot & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 2664; Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 4446; and Carona Ltd. v. M/s. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons, AIR 2008 SC 187. (Para 9).
4. Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225. (Para 12).
5. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. Santosh Kumar Sahoo & Anr., AIR 2010 SC 3553. (Para 13).
6. Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 93. (Para 14).
7. Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159. (Para 14).
8. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani, AIR 2008 SC 2957. (Para 15)
Judgment :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’) constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), in Revision Petition No. 1156 of 2007, MA. No. 291 of 2008; and MA. No. 450 of 2008, by way of which, the Commission has dismissed the claim of the appellant as well as the review petition seeking certain reliefs.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:
A. The appellant joined Health Department, of the respondent State, as Medical Officer on 5.6.1953 and took voluntary retirement on 28.10.1985. During the period of service, he stood transferred to another district but he retained the government accommodation, i.e. Bungalow No. B-8 from 11.5.1980 to 8.7.1981. Appellant claimed that he had not been paid all his retiral benefits, and penal rent for the said period had also been deducted from his dues of retiral benefits without giving any show cause notice to him.
B. Appellant made various representations, however, he was not granted any relief by the State authorities.
C. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as the `District Forum’) on 5.1.1995 and the said Forum vide order dated 24.3.2000 dismissed the complaint on merits observing that his outstanding dues i.e. pension, gratuity and provident fund etc. had correctly been calculated and paid to the appellant by the State authorities.
D. The appellant approached the appellate authority, i.e., the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.1.2007 observing that though the complaint was not maintainable as the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the appellant as he was not a “consumer” and the dispute between the parties could not be redressed by the said Forum, but in view of the fact that the opposite party (State) neither raised the issue of jurisdiction before the District Forum nor preferred any appeal, order of the District Forum on the jurisdictional issue attained finality. However, there was no merit in the appeal.
E. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Revision Petition No. 1156 of 2007 before the Commission. The said revision stood dismissed vide order dated 1.4.2008 and the review filed by the appellant has also been dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2009.
Hence, this appeal.
4. Shri Narendra Hooda, learned Senior AAG, Haryana, has raised preliminary issue of the jurisdiction submitting that the service matter of a government servant cannot be dealt with by any of the Forum in any hierarchy under the Act. Therefore, the matter should not be considered on merit at all. More so, all the outstanding dues of the appellant had been paid, and none of the issues survive any more.
5. Shri Prateesh Kapur, learned Amicus Curiae, has raised a large number of grievances, inter-alia, that till today the appellant has not been paid all his retiral benefits as some of his outstanding dues have been withheld by the authorities, thus, he is entitled to recover the same with interest; whether the Forum was competent to entertain the complaint ought to have been decided by the District Forum first as a preliminary issue. It is difficult for a litigant to go back to any other appropriate Forum after such a long time. In the instant case, the appellant approached the District Forum in 1995, the matter could not be finalised till date, and at such a belated stage, the appellant if asked to approach the other forum, a great hardship would be caused to him.
6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
