Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Shri Varun Kant, learned counsel for the respondent No.6-LIC informs that the LIC had sent a letter dated 28.11.2018, copy of which is part of annexure 9 to the petition (page 38), to indicate that the group insurance policy has been closed w.e.f. 31.03.2014. He also referred to the letter dated 24.08.2022, copy of which is part of annexure 9 to the petition (page 41), that had been issued by the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parisad, U.P. to the Finance Controller, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. to contend that despite the amount towards the group insurance being deducted from the employees, it has not been found possible to remit the amount to the LIC and that the deducted amounts have been deposited in the salary grant No.071.
8. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is contended by Shri Kant, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 that once the group insurance policy had itself been closed w.e.f. 31.03.2014 and was not applicable on the employees who were appointed subsequent thereto, in this case the petitioner's husband having been appointed on 26.11.2015, consequently there cannot be any occasion for the LIC to make any payment of the group insurance amount to the petitioner.
9. Considering the aforesaid letter that has been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6, it is prima facie apparent that despite the deductions having been made from the salary of the petitioner's husband, the amounts were not remitted to the LIC and consequently, there cannot be occasion of any amount to be given to the petitioner towards the group insurance policy amount by the LIC.
10. However, fact of the matter remains that deductions appear to have been regularly made from the salary of the petitioner's husband which, as per the letter dated 24.08.2022, have been deposited in the salary grant and thus, the petitioner may be entitled for refunds being paid for the aforesaid deductions along with admissible interest.
11. Considering the aforesaid, learned counsels appearing for the respondents shall seek specific instructions in this regard more particularly when the amounts have been deducted towards group insurance from the salary of the petitioner' husband and the amount of group insurance was not payable to the petitioner's husband on account of group insurance policy having not been made applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2014 to those employees who were appointed subsequent thereto, as to how the respondents intend to remedy the prima facie wrong which has been committed in the instant case.

4. Considering the aforesaid and as the petitioner's husband was not entitled for group insurance policy having itself been closed with effect from 31.03.2014 and the petitioner's husband having been appointed on 26.11.2015 yet considering that deductions have been made from salary of the petitioner's husband of Rs 87 per month as such let the aforesaid amount under deposit with the respondent no. 3 be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest rate admissible for GPF from the date of deduction till the date of actual payment.