Complainant Adarsh Gram Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Chak Shyam Kirav, Allahabad had purchased two Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) of Rs.10,000/- each on 11.3.1999. Both were offered as security to the office of District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad, in connection with grant of recognition. Subsequently on 11.8.2008, the District Inspector of Schools released the two certificates. They were presented to OP-1 for payment of the maturity value. But, no payments were released, on the ground that under the extant rules, the Kisan Vikas Patras could not have been issued in the name of the organisation/School. Considering that the two KVPs had matured for payment on 11.3.2005, the District Forum directed that the maturity value should be paid to the complainant together with 8% interest from the date of maturity, compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. While doing so, the District Forum observed that the OPs were aware of the relevant rules under which, after 1995, KVPs could not have been issued in the name of an organisation. Even if the complainant was not aware, the OPs were. Therefore, having issued the certificates in 1999, the OPs could not be permitted to refuse payment of the maturity value, relying upon organizational rules of 1995. 2. The order of the District Forum was passed in July 2010 and the appeal before the State Commission was filed in October 2010. The Commission held that the appeal needed to be dismissed on the ground of delay. It also held that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment of the District Forum was correct. The appeal was therefore dismissed on grounds of delay as also merit. 3. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/OPs argued that issue of KVPs in violation of the Rules was an inadvertent mistake and the respondent/complainant cannot be permitted to benefit from it. We are unable to accept this argument. The fact remains that the money of the respondent complainant was under the control of and available for use by the Petitioners during the entire period since 1999. The Petitioners can also not be permitted to take shelter behind the government circular, having themselves violated it. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has sought to rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Arulmighu Dhandayudhapaniswamy Vs. The Director General of Post Offices, Department of Posts & Ors., 2011 (2) CPC 495. We find that the facts here were very different. The Temple Trust had invested a huge sum on 5.5.1995 for a period of five years. It was informed by the Post Master through a letter of 1.12.1995, that the scheme permitting investment by institutions had been discontinued since 1.4.1995. Therefore, all such accounts needed to be closed. The amount deposited by the temple was refunded on 3.1.1996, without interest. It was held that it was a case of an inadvertent mistake by the concerned officials. Hence, it was held that no interest was payable. By contrast, in the case before us, the department took no such corrective step. The argument of ‘inadvertent mistake’ has been raised in the Revision Petition. But it does not mention what evidence was led in this behalf before the fora below. In fact, the money invested by the complainant was retained for full term of the KVPs and beyond. Therefore, in our view, the Revision Petitioners can derive no support from the decision cited above. 5. On the other hand, in the following cases with similar facts and circumstances coming before this Commission the department of Posts itself had agreed to pay the interest at 6% from the date of deposit. 1. The Chief Post Master General Office of the CPMG Vs. Secretary Shri Chuda Mila Producers Co.Op Organisation Ltd. (RP No.2651 of 2007) decided on 23.10.2009 (NC) 2. State Bank of Patiala Vs. Gopal Krishan Singla, IV (2011) CPJ 241 (NC). 6. For the reasons above, we are of the view that the revision petitioners have failed to make out any case against the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed for want of merit. No order as to costs. |
