A government employee is not considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and cannot seek relief under the Act for GPF interest disputes. Rule 20 of J & K G.P. Fund Rules entitles a government employee to interest on GPF amount for a period of six months from the date of superannuation.

D.K. Kapoor, Member (J)

1. A short but important controversy has been raised in this consumer complaint i.e. whether the complainant, who superannuated as civil servant (IAS Officer), is a 'consumer' and can maintain a complaint for release of unpaid interest on his GPF amount for a period beyond six months from his superannuation? Sh. Kuber Singh Salathia, hereinafter referred to as 'complainant', a KAS Officer was conferred IAS during his employment with J & K Government. He superannuated in August 2002. He contends that interest on his GPF amount lying with Ops was paid only for a period of six months which is gross non-adherence of Rule 6 of G.P.F. Rules. He has claimed Rs. 3,82,000 up to March 2003 with interest and damages to the tune of Rs. 2 Lakhs, totaling to Rs. 7,82,000. This complaint has been contested tooth and nail by OPs on the grounds, inter alia, that complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act and that complainant superannuated on 31.8.2002 but submitted his claim before OPs on 12.4.2007 i.e. after 4 years and 7 months after his retirement from service. Complainant is entitled to interest for six months only in view of Rule 20 of J & K G.P. Fund Rules read with Finance Department Circular No. DF/Coord-22/2006, dated 23.02.2006 and SRO 254 dated 02.9.2009. This is submitted that interest has been disbursed in favour of complainant for six months only.

2. We have heard advocates for parties at length and perused relevant rules and law vis-a-vis factual background of the case.

3. Regarding maintainability of complaint under C.P. Act, National Commission Delhi has, after making reference to its own earlier larger bench judgment (infra) and Hon'ble Apex Court judgments State of Orissa v. Div. Manager, LIC and Anr. (1996) 8 SCC 655; and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi (AIR 2000 SC 331), held in Om Prakash v. Accountant General, Haryana (A & E), Lekha Bhawan, Chandigarh (Haryana) Revision Petition No. 3878 of 2009, decided on July 6, 2010, as under:

"A four members Bench of this Commission in the case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr. v. Shivkant Shankar Naik, reported in : I (2003) CPJ 276 (NC), had the occasion to consider the question as to whether the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Accountant General of the States are rendering any service to Government employees under the provision of the Provident Fund Act, 1925 and the Rules framed thereunder. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi, : III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 331 (supra) had been advanced as a plea, but the Bench after consideration of the facts therein had distinguished the same and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Div. Manager, LIC and Anr.; : (1996) 8 SCC 655 held as under:

"We hold that dispute raised by the complainants/respondents is not 'consumer dispute' and they are not 'consumers' and Accountant Generals are not running any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It may also be noticed that the State Government in the exercise of its power has jurisdiction to give instructions not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Statutory Rules on that subject. We, therefore, allow all these revision petitions and set aside the orders of the District Forums and the State Commissions and dismiss the complaints. There shall be no order as to costs."

4. Likewise in a recent case titled 'Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. v. Dir. Health Services Haryana, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3060', Hon'ble SC has in paras 16 and 17 cleared the position which are reproduced hereunder under:

16. In view of the above, it is evident that 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 un