The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of law enunciated in Sukhdev v. Bhagat Ram and R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India to establish the Registered Society as a State Agency or instrumentality, thus entitling the respondent to the relief awarded by the District Forum.

Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—Late Capt. Kirpal Singh, the deceased husband of the complainant-respondent Smt. Suvinder Kaur, had been working with the Rajasthan State Flying School, Rajasthan, Jaipur (the “School”) as Chief Pilot Instructor since 8.4.1991. Considering him being liable to be insured under the Rajasthan Government Servant’s Insurance Rules, 1953 (the “Rules 1953”), Endowment Assurance Policy No. 720649 was issued to him and deductions of the amounts of premium, payable towards that policy, were regularly made from his monthly pay-bills by his said employer and paid to the appellant, a department of the Govt. of Rajasthan, rendering such insurance services to its employees. The respondent was, admittedly, the sole nominee of the insured in the said policy. The insured, however, died a pre-mature death on 4.10.1996. The respondent filed her claim with the appellant for payment of double of the assured sum with bonus and other benefits under the said policy. But the appellant made payment of Rs. 8,425/- on account of aggregate amount of premium paid towards the policy and Rs. 1,854/- on account of interest for delayed payment. These amounts are stated to have been received by the respondent “under protest”. She asserted her right to get double of the assured sum with bonus and other benefits under the policy in question through her complaint filed before the District Forum No. 2, Jaipur. The appellant contested the complaint on the ground that since the deceased insured was not a Govt. servant and hence not liable to be insured under the provisions of the Rules 1953, he and after his death his nominee, were not entitled to the beneficial provisions of the said rules. The District Forum negatived the version of the appellant and decreed respondent’s claim vide its order dated 27.6.1996. Hence this appeal under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the “Act”) by the appellant.

2. It was vehemently urged by Mr. M.L. Vyas, the learned Counsel for the appellant that late Capt. Shri Kirpal Singh was simply an employee of the school which was a society registered under the provisions of Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 and as such he was not liable to be insured under Rules, 1953 and hence not entitled to any benefits under the said rules. The learned Counsel added that the acts of the appellant’s insuring him and issuing an Endowments Insurance Policy to him under the provisions of Rules, 1953 and also receiving periodically the amounts of premium payable towards such policy, which acts were done de hors the rules, would not confer the status of a Govt. servant upon the deceased insured so as to Make him entitled to seek benefits under Rules, 1953. It was submitted that there can be no estoppel against a Statute and, therefore, the doctrine of ‘Promissory Estoppel’ was inapplicable to the facts of the present case. Reliance in support of such arguments was placed on :

(1) AIR 2001 SC 330 (Para 22), M/s. Sharma Transport v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh.

Promissory Estoppel - Does not apply against Statute.

(2) III =AIR 1998 SC 1400, Tarsem Singh v. Sukhvinder Singh.

Restitution of advantage under void agreement.

(3) AIR 1995 SC 227, Smt. Ravinder Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Appointment against Rules - No estoppel.

(4) AIR 1992 (I) SC 1075, Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Promise to refund Sales Tax is unconstitutional and against public policy. Not enforceable at Court. No estoppel.

(5) III =AIR 1999 SC 1347, Jalendhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh.

Acceptance of initial deposit towards consideration cannot protect illegal allotment by applying principles of estoppel.

(6) I (2000) CPJ 60 (NC)= 2000 NCJ (NC) 154, Rajasthan Housing Board v. Kailash Babu Sharma.

Double allotment by mistake does not give any enforceable right.

(7) Sagarmal Dulama v. Asstt. Director, S.I. Rev. No. 72 of 1994 decided on 13.1.1995 by Hon’ble National Commission.

Forum cannot declare any rule or order illegal.

3.