Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner/complainant was an employee of Respondent, Rajasthan Agricultue College and a member of Employees Provident Fund Scheme.  He took loan from his provident fund account on 13.1.1987 and repaid the same in 1988.  thereafter, he took loan in 1990 and repaid in 1994.  On 5.7.1994 he again applied for loan but his loan application was rejected on the ground that a sum of Rs.16,211.19 was outstanding against him.  Complainant informed the Provident Fund Office that no amount is outstanding against him.  Since no action was taken on his application, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 3.4.2002 dismissed the complaint, aggrieved against which, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  State Commission has dismissed the appeal by observing thus :

“The appellant is the complainant.  His grievance was that in the course of his employment with the respondent he had applied for sanction of loan from his P.F. Account in the year 1995 and 1997 but the respondent, which is a University at Udaipur, did not sanction such loan to him.  The D.F. has found that the appellant had obtained loans on his PF Account of Rs.7800/- in 1987, Rs.10,000/- in 1989 and Rs.14,400/- in 1990 and Rs.43,000/- in 1998.  The D.F. has accordingly held that since the sanction of the loan and repayment thereof by the appellant was governed by the service rules applicable to the appellant and loan was sanctioned and disbursed to him from time to time as per relevant rules of the respondent, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent in the year 1995 and 1997 when the bills prepared for such loan were found in the possession of the appellant himself.  It may be mentioned that the complaint was filed by the appellant in the year 1998, when he had already received a loan of Rs.43,000/- from the respondent University.”

            We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  No ground is made out for interference.  Dismissed.