BANWAR LAL vs STATE INSURANCE

THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur in Appeal No. 2126 of 2003 dated 13.8.2004.

THE brief facts giving an occasion to this petition are as follows: THE petitioner retired as U.D.C. from the Office of the Commissioner, Command Area Development, Indira Gandhi Canal Project, Senior Account Officer (Admn.), Bikaner (Rajasthan) after attaining age of superannuation on 31.12.1995. During the service, there was a compulsory deduction from the monthly salary of the petitioner against State Insurance policy. On his retirement, a sum of Rs. 27,788 was said to be payable in the year 2001. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs. 18,192 was deducted and Rs. 9,596 was paid to him. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a complaint.

The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 15.10.2003 on the ground that the petitioner was not a consumer.

AN appeal was filed before the State Commission. The learned State Commission had noticed that the petitioner remained voluntarily absent from the service for a long period. Consequently, on his representation before His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan, for regularisation of his absence period, his absence from the duty was regularised as extra-ordinary leave but he was not allowed the leave salary. The petitioner could not satisfy the State Commission about the query whether any deduction was made from his salary in respect of the period of his extraordinary leave which was regularised by His Excellency, the Governor of Rajasthan. Even in the revision petition it has nowhere claimed that during the leave period of absence regularised by His Excellency, Governor of Rajasthan, he was given any pay and out of that pay any amount was deducted towards his contribution by the State Insurance Department. However, it appears that some amount was deducted but was not accepted by the State Insurance Department, as the direction was not in accordance with law. In case no amount was deducted and the amount which was sought to be deposited was not accepted by the State Insurance, the amount could not be paid back or refunded and the question of paying interest @ 12% or so does not arise. No amount has been due. According to the calculation filed by the petitioner, Rs. 18,192 as refund was due and naturally this amount was required to be adjusted out of Rs. 27,788. Accordingly, we do not find any force in this revision petition and it is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed