Govt. servant – Not consumer – Dispute regarding retrial benefits, PF Gratuity cannot be entertained by consumer for a Jurisdiction – Issue – Goes to root of matter – Can be raised at any stage – Doctrine of waiver does not apply:

The Appellant joined Health Department, of the Respondent State, as Medical Officer on 05-06-1953 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.

Appellant claimed that he had not been paid all his retrial benefits, and penal rent for the said period had also been deducted from his dues of retrial benefits without giving any show cause notice to him. Appellant made various representations, however, he was not granted any relief by the State authorities. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, the said Forum vide order dated 24.3.2000 dismissed the complaint on merits

The Appellant approached the appellate authority, i.e., the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and revision application was also dismissed 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.

On further appeal the learned Senior AAG, Haryana, 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.

The Hon’ble Court observed 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 under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a “consumer” as defined u/s. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retrial benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act.

The Court further observed that 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. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexcutable 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.