State Governments Employees' Group Insurance Scheme.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Dear experts;
GOOD MORNING.
The Rules governing the field of refund of the amounts accumulated in the Savings Fund of State’s Group Insurance Scheme provide that; the interest on the accumulation towards Savings fund shall be allowed till the date of ceasing a Government servant to the member of the scheme.
Thus, I may please be enlighten as to whether a Government servant who remains absent from his duties for a longer period, say for a period of over three years, and given the punishment of Compulsory Retirement for the very misconduct by treating the entire absence period as “dies-non”, can be denied the interest thereon for the period treated as “dies-non”.
I will be grateful to the Experts, if they could cite the precedent, if any exists, on this issue.
I will post the relevant provision of the aforesaid rules if the same are necessary for rendering the considered opinion.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

I don’t know about the rules applicable in your state. But, generally, the rules are similar to the rules applicable under the Central Government Group Insurance Scheme. As per this scheme:

“The balance of the subscription shall be credited to a Saving Fund. The amount in the Savings Fund will be held by the Central Government in Public Account. The total accumulation of Savings together with interest thereon will be payable to the member on his retirement after attaining the age of Superannuation or on cessation of his employment with the Central Government or to his family on his death while in service.”

You can see these rules online by clicking here.

The actual amount to be paid to an employee on retirement, etc., is as per the tables that are issued every year (see the table online by clicking here).

The rules also provide for recovery of subscriptions during the period when the employee is on without-pay leave as under:

” If an employee is on extraordinary leave and there is no payment of his salary/wage for any period, his subscriptions for the months for which no payments of salary/wage are made to him shall be recovered with interest rounded to the nearest whole rupee admissible under the scheme on the accretions to the Saving Fund in not more than three instalments commencing from his salary/wage for the months following the month in which he resumes duty after leave. if an employee dies while on extraordinary leave, the subscriptions due from him shall be recovered with interest rounded to the nearest whole rupee admissible under the scheme on the accretions to the Savings Fund from the payments admissible to his family under the scheme.”

So, you’ll have to check your own rules which may be similar to these and check the tables issued by your authority to see your entitlement.     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Respected sir (Dr. Ashok Dhamija ji);

I am proud of having found such a great advisor who never disappointed me either by asking me to cure the lacuna in my queries or giving me any scope for seeking clarifications on the advise so rendered to me. I salute you sir.

Sir, you are absolutely correct that the former rule reproduced above corresponds exactly to Rule 10 of our State’s Rules, namely; THE KARNATAKA STATE EMPLOYEES’ GROUP INSURANCES RULES, 1981 (for brevity the KSEGIS Rules, 1981). The latter to Rule 9 thereof.

But, I am most unfortunate that the authorities are reluctant to accept the true spirit of Rule 9, pertaining to recovery of due subscription. They intentionally caused me considerably heavy financial loss by contending that since the said rule envisages; “the subscriptions for the months for which no payments of salary/wage are made to a member shall be recovered with interest admissible under the scheme on the accretions to the Saving Fund in not more than three instalments commencing from his salary/wage for the months following the month in which he resumes duty after leave”, I cannot be extended the benefit thereof, inasmuch as I have ceased to be in service without returning to duty even for a single day.

I had tried my level best to convince them that the amount outstanding in the said account is my property having recovered for my hardly earned salaries. The same is remaining at the disposal and in utilisation of the Government of Karnataka. Whatever additional amount payable to me on the said amount in the name of INTEREST actually constitutes the RENT towards the same. But, it is regretted that even the Administrator of the Scheme including the Ministry of Finance have upheld the arbitrary action of my departmental authorities.

Sir, I would have approached the Hon’ble Administrative Tribunal. But, I am not sure as to length of time the Tribunal may consume in disposing of my application. Please take note of the fact that an application filed in the year 2002 by a destitute widow of ill-fated Government servant, died in harness, claiming her legitimate right of Family Pension is disposed of in August 2014.

Hence, I am troubling you time and again so that an alternate effective remedy, if at all available, could be suggested by you sir.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Unfortunately, there can only be two possible legal remedies. Either convince or persuade the authority concerned (or his superior authority) to grant you the relief sought by you, or to approach the court / tribunal if the authority does not grant you the relief. I cannot think of any other legal remedy (I am not counting the unlawful remedies here that may be available) available, of course, the third option could perhaps be to simply forget the benefit if the stakes are not too high. It is true that the tribunal may take a long time to deliver justice, and that is unfortunate, but what else is the way out? So, if you feel that the amount involved is substantial and is worth waiting for tribunal decision (and after spending some money on pursuing this litigation), there is no option but to challenge it in the tribunal or other court having jurisdiction.     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Thanks a lot sir,

As already made it clear by me in the query relating to bouncing of cheque for want of signature of the issuing authority, I am against offering gratifications or bribes, which has brought me to this position. Still I will never compromise, irrespective of the fact how huge is the amount of my legitimate claims. So the question of asking for or resorting to ILLEGAL remedies does not arise at all.

So once again I would thank you for the most sincere advice rendered by you sir.

Anyway, now I am satisfied that my interpretation of the very same rules was not wrong, so I can proceed to file the application before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

Simultaneously, it will be just and proper if I am enlighten about the fact as to whether the Revision of Pensionary Benefits and re-determining the admissibility of the quantum of my SAVINGS FUND may amount to a single Cause of Action or otherwise.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

Whether it is a single cause of action or not, will depend upon the detailed facts of the case.     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Dear sir,
Good Morning,

The facts and circumstances are that, as observed by you the rules are very clear as to how the recovery of due subscribtions should be effcted and when a Government servant ceases to be a member of the scheme.

Similarly, the Karnataka Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2012 [unlike THE CCS (RP)RULES] dictate that the pay of every such Government servant who was in service as on 01/04/2012 shall be fixed in the revised scale very promptly but not latter than 31/07/2012, and for this purpose no option is needed to be exercised by the Government servant. Admittedly, I was in service till 23/05/2012, although I was absent from duty right from 28/02/2012.

Above all, I was in receipt of the all allowances which stood absorbed in the existing basic pay for the purpose of restructuring the new scales.

Despite, the P&AO has fixed my pension taking into account the pay drawn by me on 27/02/2012 in old scale. As a result, I am deprived of 91.75% of allowances which I would have received on my pension had the revision of scales not taken place.

In fact, I have failed in citing the root cause of the reduction of my pensionary benefits is an afterthought order passed by the functus officio disciplinary authority. The order of punishment was issued on 22/05/2015 in which the entire period of my absence was ordered to be regulated as EOL. But, by means of an order which was issued on 22/07/2015 the said period came to be treated as dies-non.

The proviso to Rule 106-A of THE KARNATAKA CIVIL SERVICES RULES reserves the discretion with the disciplinary authority alone to treat the period of unauthorised absence as admissible leave or dies-non keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

[Dr. Ashok Dhamija]

From the facts mentioned by you, it appears that there are separate orders and communications for rejecting your claims for the two things. So, generally speaking, there should be two causes of action for these things, which means generally speaking, two separate matters are filed. For example, Rule 10 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, provides as under:

“10. Plural remedies. – An application shall be based upon a single cause of action and may seek one or more reliefs provided that they are consequential to one another.”

There may be a similar rule for your state tribunal also, I hope.

May be due to such rule, sometimes, I have seen people filing one case in similar situations as both relate to retirement benefits (and, also, because proceedings before service tribunals are not as strict as before a regular civil court); however, in that case the tribunal may perhaps ask you to segregate the two matters and file two matters. In service tribunals, the court fee is very small (in CAT, it is Rs. 50) unlike the regular civil courts, therefore, filing separate cases should not generally be an issue. So, it may be preferable if you file two separate matters (and get them tagged so that they appear on the same day), but if you want to take a chance and file a single case then you can subsequently file two cases if the tribunal directs you to do so.     

---

Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.

[Sadiq Hussain]

Thank you sir

[Author]

Posts