DR. JAGMITTAR SAIN BHAGAT versus DIR. HEALTH SERVICES, HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 11-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN, S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 8 S.C.R. 77 
DR. JAGMITTAR SAIN BHAGAT 
v. 
DIR. HEALTH SERVICES, HARYANA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5476 of 2013) 
JULY 11, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - ss. 2 and 11 - Forum 
under the Act - Jurisdiction of, to deal with the service matters 
A 
B 
of government servants -Held: A government servant cannot C 
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 D 
to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his 
service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed 
for that purpose - 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 Act. 
E 
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das (1994) 4 
SCC 225: 1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 136; Secretary, Board of 
Secondary Education, Orissa v. Santosh Kumar Sahoo & 
. Anr. AIR 2010 SC 3553: 2010 (8) SCC 353; Bihar School F 
Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha AIR 2010 SC 
93: 2009 (8) SCC 483; Maharshi Dayanand University v. 
Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159: 2010 (8) SCR 475 and 
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Bhavani AIR 2008 
SC 2957: 2008 (6) SCR 767 - referred to. 
Jurisdiction - Conferment of - Held: Is a legislative 
function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of 
the parties nor by a superior Court - If the Court passes a 
77 
G 
H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 8 S.C.R. 
decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount 
to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. 
United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen AIR 
1951 SC 230: 1951 SCR 380; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal 
Ramnarayan & Ors. AIR 1978 SC 22: 1978 (1) SCR 723; 
Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr. AIR 1981 
SC 537: 1981 (2) SCR 466; Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. 
Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 2213: 1999 (2) 
SCR 728; Sushi/ Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) 
Thr. Lrs. (1990) 1 SCC 193: 1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 149; 
Setruchar/u Ramabhadra Raju Bahadur v. Maharaja of 
Jeypor, AIR 1919 PC 150; State of Gujarat v. Rajesh Kumar 
Chimanlal Barot & Anr. AIR 1996 SC 2664: 1996 (4) Suppl. 
SCR 279; Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Ltd . 
. & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 4446: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 495 and 
Carona Ltd. v. Mis. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons AIR 2008 
SC 187: 2007 (10) SCR 656 - relied on. 
Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. K.S. Wadke & Ors. (1976) 
1 SCC 496: 1976 (1) SCR 427; Kiran Singh v. Chaman 
Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340: 1955 SCR 117; Chandrika Misir 
& Anr. v. Bhaiyala, AIR 1973 SC 2391: 1974 (1) SCR 290 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1951 SCR 380 
relied on 
Para 7 
1978 (1) SCR 723 
relied on 
Para 7 
1981 (2) SCR 466 
relied on 
Para 7 
1999 (2) SCR 728 
relied on 
Para 7 
1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 149 relied on 
Para 7 
1976 (1) SCR 427 
referred to 
Para 8 
1955 SCR 117 
referred to 
Para 8 
DR. JAGMITTAR SAIN BHAGAT v. DIR. HEALTH 
79 
SERVICES, HARYANA 
1974 (1) SCR 290 
referred to 
Para 8 
AIR 1919 PC 150 
relied on 
Para 9 
1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 279 relied on 
Para 9 
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 495 relied on 
Para 9 
2007 (10) SCR 656 
relied on 
Para 9 
1994 (1) Suppl. SCR 136 referred to 
Para 12 
201 o (8) sec 353 
referred to 
Para 13 
2009 (8) sec 483 
referred to 
Para 14 
2010 (8) SCR 475 
referred to 
Para 14 
2008 (6) SCR 767 
referred to 
Para 15 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5476 of 2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2009 of the 
National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New 
Delhi in RP No.1156 of 2007, MA No. 291 & 450 of 2008. 
Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (Petitioner-In-Person), Prateesh 
Kapur (A.C.) for the Appellants. 
Narendra Hooda, Sr. AAG, Dr. Monika Gusain for ihe 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Respondents. 
F 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
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 
G 
~ 
referred to as the 'Commission') constituted under the H 
80 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 
'Act'), in Revision Petition No. 1156 of 2007, MA.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.