Smt. Sweety John Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9505

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12592 of 2024 Petitioner :- Smt. Sweety John Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sumer Chandra,Ram Lakhan Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Net Ram,Ran Vijay Singh,Sanjeev Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for the respondent no. 1, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 & 3, Shri Net Ram, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 & 5 and Shri Varun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

¶6

2. Learned counsels for the parties state that the facts of the case has already been set forth by this Court in order dated 09.01.2025, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:

¶7

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3 and Shri Varun Kant, learned counsel who has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.6, which is taken on record.

¶8

2. Shri Net Ram, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondents No.4 & 5.

¶9

3. The widow of an Assistant Teacher is before this Court claiming payment of the group insurance amount to her.

¶10

4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that her husband namely Vivek Kumar Verma was appointed on 26.12.2015 as Assistant Teacher. Regular deductions were made from his salary towards the group insurance amount but despite he having died on 10.08.2021, the group insurance amount has still not been paid to her.

¶11

5. When the petitioner staked her claim for being paid the group insurance amount, the respondent No.6-LIC, vide order impugned dated 12.08.2024, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, has informed that the group insurance is only applicable on those employees who were appointed prior to 31.03.2014 and the petitioner's husband, having been appointed on 26.11.2015, is not eligible for being paid the

¶12

group insurance amount.

¶13

6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the letter that has been issued by the Finance & Accounts Officer, Basic Education, Lakhimpur Kheri dated 06.08.2024, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the petition (page 54), indicates that regulars deductions of group insurance have been made from various employees and had been remitted to the LIC which thus entails the respondents to pay the group insurance amount to the petitioner on account of death of the petitioner's husband.

¶14

7. Shri Varun Kant, learned counsel for the respondent No.6LIC 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

12. Let the instructions be taken within two weeks.

¶20

13. List thereafter, as fresh.

¶21

14. Whenever the case is listed, name of Shri Varun Kant be indicated from the side of respondent."

¶22

3. Today Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 informs that the husband of the petitioner was not entitled for Group insurance yet deductions of Rs 87 per month were made by the concerned BSA and remitted to the office of Finance Controller and remained under deposit and the total amount of deduction is Rs 6090/-. This amount has been stated on the basis of instructions dated 12.02.2025 sent by the Finance and Account Officer, Basic Shiksha, Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶23

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.

¶24

5. The amount of interest would be calculated on the monthly deductions.

¶25

6. Let the aforesaid amount be paid within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

7. The writ petition stands disposed of .

¶27

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 J. K. Dinkar

¶28

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Sweety John v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sweety John v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Edu. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Devendra Kumar Vs U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. Lko. Thru. Its Managing Dir. and Another

Mohini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 6 Others

Saiyed Hasan Abbas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and 5 Others

Abdhash Kumar Vs U.P. Seed Development Corporation Thru. Managing Director and 3 Others

Dr. Om Prakash Misra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Secondary Education and 6 Others