The case concerns an appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh against a High Court judgment that granted pensionary benefits to respondents, who were temporary employees under the “AntarGraminSadakNirman Yojana” (Scheme). The core issue revolves around whether these temporary employees, despite their initial contributory provident fund scheme, are entitled to pension benefits comparable to regular government employees, especially given prior court rulings on similar cases, such as that of Vinod Kumar Goel. The Supreme Court ultimately dismisses the appeal, affirming the respondents’ entitlement to pension, though with a restriction on arrears to three years prior to their writ petition filing, and allowing for the deduction of previously received provident fund amounts.
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – Home loan agreement – Tripartite Agreement – Adverse inference – NCDRC in the Impugned Order has offered no reasoning on how the respondent was a ‘consumer’ under the Act – As per the complainant-respondent, there was a Tripartite Agreement and an Indemnity Bond between the appellant, the complainant-respondent and the borrower intervened by a Home Loan agreement between the appellant and the borrower as also a MoU and an Agreement for Sale between the complainant-respondent and the borrower – Though the existence of the Tripartite Agreement was specifically denied by the appellant, the NCDRC has drawn an adverse inference against the appellant only because a specific affidavit was not filed before it – Such statement regarding denial of the existence of the purported Tripartite Agreement was made in the appellant’s reply only, in the NCDRC, which was itself supported by an affidavit and thus, no separate/special affidavit was required in this behalf – The onus is on the person who asserts a fact to prove it – In the present case, where the respondent himself is a signatory to the purported Tripartite Agreement, the presumption will be that he has retained a copy of the same – Thus, non-production of the (complete) Tripartite Agreement, if at all there was one, would lead to an adverse inference, and under normal circumstances as also in the present case, against the complainant-respondent, and not against the appellant – What the complainant produced before the NCDRC was an unsigned, unstamped and partly blank document, which he asserts is the Tripartite Agreement between the appellant, the borrower and him.
(Para 16)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – Home loan agreement – Tripartite Agreement – Held that even if it is accepted that all the afore- mentioned agreements were validly there, primarily the Tripartite Agreement, as contended by the respondent, a conjoint reading of all would lead to the obvious conclusion that the essential transaction of sale was between the complainant-respondent and the borrower who was the buyer of the flat of the complainant-respondent for an agreed consideration of Rs.32,00,000/- – In the specific factual setting, the respondent, having no privity of contract with the appellant, cannot be termed a ‘consumer’ under the Act – This alone was sufficient to dismiss the complaint.
(Para 17)
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer – Home loan agreement – Tripartite Agreement – Whether any liability rested on the appellant to disburse the entire amount of Rs.31,00,000/- i.e., the remaining consideration amount for sale of the flat payable to the complainant-respondent by the borrower? – Appellant’s liability under the Agreement for sale was restricted only to satisfying the dues of the complainant-respondent with ICICI Bank which sum was in fact quantified at Rs.17,87,763/- and, in any view of the matter, could not have exceeded Rs.23,40,000/- – Held that the NCDRC could not have, under any circumstance, taken a view that the appellant was liable to pay Rs.31,00,000/- both to ICICI Bank as well as to the complainant-respondent, who was not a party to the ultimate sanction of the loan by the Home Loan Agreement, which was between the appellant and the borrower – Complainant- respondent cannot be said to be a ‘consumer’ under the Act as it had no privity of contract with the appellant, due regard being had to the totality of the factual matrix.
(Para 19 to 21)
(D) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A – Consumer – Limitation – The purported Tripartite Agreement is dated 09.02.2008 – The cause of action statedly had arisen in/by April/May, 2008 – The respondent filed a complaint under the Act on 16.04.2018 – Held that while the NCDRC is competent to condone any period of delay in filing a complaint beyond two years from the date when the cause of action arises, the discretion is circumscribed by twin conditions: (i) that the complainant satisfy the NCDRC that he had sufficient cause for not filing his complaint within such period, and; (ii) that the NCDRC record the reasons for condoning such delay – Neither reasons nor a formal order condoning delay is forthcoming, either in the order-sheets or in the Impugned Order – Despite the appellant raising the issue of limitation, the Impugned Order is silent on the said score – On a probe into the pleadings, it transpires that the respondent was agitating the dispute before, inter alia, the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India and even the High Court of Orissa by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No.18429 of 2017 – In this backdrop, at the initial stage(s) of hearing, the respondent ought to have satisfied/attempted to satisfy the NCDRC on the delay, and the NCDRC ought to have passed a reasoned order condoning the delay or refusing to condone the delay.
(Para 22)
(E) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(c) –Consumer Complaint – Necessary party – Home loan – Tripartite agreement – Specific plea by the appellant, that the borrower should have been joined in the proceedings before the NCDRC – Held that if the borrower had been arrayed as an Opposite Party in the NCDRC, the question of whether a Tripartite Agreement was duly executed and existed or not, could perhaps have been answered – It is too late in the day to plug such non-joinder – In view of the borrower being the purchaser of the flat in question and party to the MoU, the Agreement for Sale, the Home Loan Agreement and the purported Tripartite Agreement, he was, at the very least a proper party, but looked at from the lens where the appellant denied the very existence of the Tripartite Agreement, the borrower being the sole link between the respondent and the appellant, the borrower would be a necessary party in the complaint.
(Para 23)
(F) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(c) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Consumer Complaint – Arbitration – The so-called Tripartite Agreement provides for the matter being resolved by arbitration under the provisions of the Act,1996 – Held that even in a consumer dispute under the Act, or for that matter, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, arbitration, if provided for under the relevant agreement/document, can be opted for/resorted to, however, at the exclusive choice of the ‘consumer’ alone.
(Para 24 and 25)
M/S Citicorp Finance (India) Limited V. Snehasis Nanda
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 371: (DoJ 20-03-2025)
