Facing pension delays? File a consumer complaint for quick resolution

National Commission observed the dispute was for pension benefit for which consideration in the form of contribution had been paid, so the complaint was maintainable

Qazi Muhammad Ateeq was an employee of the Union Bank of India. He was compulsorily retired on May 16, 2011, but his pension benefit was inordinately delayed. Finally, an amount of Rs 15,40,000 was paid on September 10, 2014.
 

Ateeq filed a consumer complaint before the Gorakhpur District Forum in which he claimed interest from May 2011 to September 2014 due to the delay in making the payment. The bank contested the complaint on the ground that disputes regarding pension, gratuity, etc. cannot be filed before a consumer forum as there is no consideration paid by an employee for availing such benefits.
 

The District Forum upheld the bank’s contention and dismissed the complaint through its order dated May 6, 2022. Ateeq challenged this order in an appeal filed before the Uttar Pradesh State Commission. The appeal was dismissed by an order dated February 26, 2022.
 

Ateeq then approached the National Commission, questioning the correctness of the decisions against him. The bank relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & Ors. v Director, Health Services, Haryana & Ors., (2013), where it had been held that government servants did not fall within the definition of a consumer, and disputes relating to retirement benefits as well as service matters were not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. It argued that the judgement dismissing the complaint was correct as a complaint for pensionary benefits was an employer-employee dispute for which no consideration had been paid.
 

Ateeq relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v Shiv Kumar Joshi, 2000, where it had been held that an employee becomes a member of the Employee’s Pension Scheme by making a contribution, which would make him acquire the status of a “consumer”, and so he would be entitled to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.
 

It was also noted that in another matter, in the case of State Bank of Mysore v S.K. Vidya & Anr., decided on August 27, 2012, the National Commission had observed that the features of the pension scheme clearly indicate that there is an element of contribution payable by the employee, which would be construed as the requisite consideration for falling within the definition of a consumer. Hence any action of the administering authority, whether it is a separately designated authority or the employer itself, can be challenged by filing a consumer complaint for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
 

Hence, the National Commission observed that the dispute did not relate to any retirement benefit but was for a pensionary benefit for which consideration in the form of contribution had been paid. So, it concluded that even though the complaint was maintainable, it had been wrongly dismissed.
 

On merits, the National Commission observed that Ateeq had been compulsorily retired on May 16, 2011, but the pensionary benefit was paid much later on September 10, 2014. This delay was held to be a deficiency in service.
 

Accordingly, by its order of September 27, 2024, delivered by Binoy Kumar, the National Commission set aside the orders of the District Forum as well as the State Commission and allowed the complaint. It ordered the bank to pay interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the period of delay. It granted eight weeks’ time for compliance, after which the interest rate would stand hiked to 12 per cent for the entire period of delay from May 16, 2011, to September 10, 2014.

The writer is a consumer activist