The apex consumer commission has dismissed the plea of Directorate of Prosecution of Uttar Pradesh against a state commission order directing it to pay its physically disabled retired employee a gratuity of Rs 6.50 lakh, saying there was an inordinate delay of 700 days in filing the revision petition.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which upheld the order of the state commission on a complaint lodged by an Agra resident alleging non-payment of gratuity on retirement, also noted that the directorate’s appeal was drafted in a “casual and negligent manner” and no explanation was given on filing the late plea.
“It is apparent from a reading of the application and the reasons given, that the application has been drafted in a most casual and negligent manner.
“No dates have been given for this inordinate delay in filing the revision petition. Even after the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution before the State Commission, the petitioner failed to file the revision petition on time.
“The petitioner has failed to explain their repeated absence before the State Commission as also the inordinate delay of 700 days in filing the revision petition,” NCDRC bench headed by Presiding Member Rekha Gupta said.
Complainant Vikram Singh, who worked with Assistant Prosecution Office for 32-and-a-half years and retired in 2009, had alleged that on retirement he had received the provident fund, group insurance and earned leave amount, but was denied the gratuity amount of Rs 6.50 lakh.
He had alleged that the organisation on August 22, 2009 had stopped the gratuity on the grounds that departmental proceedings had been initiated against him for the alleged misappropriation of Rs 50,000.
Being aggrieved by the non-payment of gratuity, he had filed a complaint before a district forum which decided the complaint in his favour. The district forum’s order was challenged by the directorate before the state commission which upheld the decision on September 5, 2014 after which the NCDRC was moved.
During the proceedings, the UP Directorate of Prosecution defended itself over the delay in filing the revision plea contending that its counsel did not follow the case diligently and also did not inform it about the progress.
It had also contended that the delay took place due to the correspondence between various departments for filing the revision petition.
