____________________________________ Mr. Rajesh Parihar, for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Sharma ] for the respondents. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit ] = = = = Heard learned counsel for the parties. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Chandra widow of Late Shri Ganesh Ram Hiragar against the respondent department with the following prayer :-
1. The respondents may be directed to release the insurance claim to the petitioner under the State (Group) insurance scheme.
2. the communication dated 14.08.2007 (Annex.2) and 01.10.2009 (Annex.11) may kindly be declared illegal consequently the same may be quashed and set aside.
3. interest @ 18% per annum may be awarded upon the claim amount to the petitioner from the date of death of the petitioner's husband.
4. any other appropraite writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the 2humble petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's husband Late Ganesh Ram while working on the post of Agriculture Supervisor regularly contributed the premium the Group Insurance policy but unfortunately from the month of January, 2006 to June, 2006, his salary was not paid in absence of certificate issued by the concerned Sarpanch of the village where he was working on the post of Agriculture Supervisor, therefore, due to the inaction of the department, no premium towards State Insurance was deducted. When salary from January, 2006 to June, 2006 was paid after delay due to the reason that no premium was deducted and deposited by the department, the State Insurance department refused to pay the amount of group insurance policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no negligence on the part of petitioner's husband, more so an unreasonable condition was imposed by the State Government to submit absence certificate issued by the Sarpanch of concerned area for the purpose of drawing salary, therefore, the reason for denial of amount is un-constitutional, more so there was no negligence on the part of petitioner for the purpose of deducting premium from the salary in the month of April, 2006 because it was the duty of respondent department to deduct premium from the salary of month of April when it was paid to the petitioner's husband, therefore, the reason which is incorporated in the communication for rejection of 3petitioner's claim of the amount of Group Insurance may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to pay the amount of group insurance policy with interest @ 18 % per annum. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State Group Insurance Department submits that no premium towards Group Insurance policy of petitioners husband was received by the State Insurance department, therefore, in absence of any premium, the State Insurance department is not under an obligation to pay any amount under the Group insurance policy to the petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition may be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent further invited attention of this Court towards para 12 (5) of the guidelines in which the procedure is laid down for deduction of premium for Group Insurance policy and submits that when no premium was deducted and deposited in State insurance department then the claim of petitioner under Group Insurance policy is not sustainable in law, hence, this writ petition may be dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, it emerges from the facts that salary of petitioner from the month of January, 2006 to June, 2006 was paid after delay to the petitioner's husband when certificate was submitted by him, issued by the concerned Sarpanch. When salary was paid admittedly, the Department of Agriculture did not deduct the amount of premium without assigning any reason nor 4any information was given to deposit the amount of premium, the husband of the petitioner was a low paid employee and he was working in village from where, he was to obtain certificate of absence from the Sarpanch. In the opinion of this Court, the condition to submit certificate issued by Sarpanch for payment of salary is not incorporated in the RSR more so, it is the duty of the employer to pay salary to the employee month by month but due to unreasonable condition imposed by the department the salary was not paid for six months for want of certificate from Sarpanch. In the opinion of this Court, the reason for non-payment of salary itself was contrary to rules. Further when petitioner's husband was working in village then obviously, it was the duty of the authorities of respondent department that in the event of non-payment of salary, to ask the petitioner's husband to deposit the amount of State Insurance but no information was given to him nor premium was deducted by the respondent agriculture department towards the premium of Group State Insurance policy, therefore, obviously the petitioner's husband cannot be held responsible for inaction on the part of agriculture department, more so department was under a obligation to deposit the amount of group insurance policy when become due because there was master and servant relation between the petitioner's husband and respondent department. As per guidelines, following procedure is laid down for deduction of amount of premium in para 12(5) of the guidelines 5which reads as under :- (5) " " " ' ) "- ""- ") 4 " / 8 : ' , 8 1 / 8? ? @, : A B A " : : 10 : A B 8 " , / ": , ) A, 20 " I have perused the above guidelines also but I am of the view that in absence of any rule in RSR for payment of salary after submitting certificate of Sarpanch, it cannot be said that action of respondent agricultural department for not deducting the premium from salary of the petitioners husband was justified. More so the respondent arbitrarily did not deduct the premium nor deposited inspite of the fact that employee was working with the respondent department, therefore, the denial of amount of group insurance to the petitioner who is wife of Late Ganesh Ram is against the principles of natural justice. In case of 'Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Basanti Devi 6and another' reported in JT 1999 (7) SC 486, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that above condition upon which the amount of Insurance policy is denied is not justified and on the basis of above adjudication , the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Munni Devi Vs. State & Ors reported in 2001(3) WLC (Raj) 104 held that condition upon which the premium was deposited is not justified, because the petitioner's husband was contributing premium yearwise therefore, it was the duty of employer to deduct the amount of premium at the time of payment of salary and to deposit the same, therefore, both the communications impugned dated 14.08.2007 and 01.10.2009 are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communications dated 14.08.2007 and 01.10.2009 are hereby quashed and set aside with direction to the respondent Agriculture department to deposit the amount of premium of Group insurance policy which was not deducted due to their inaction, in the State Insurance Department, Government of Rajasthan if not deposited within a period of two months and after depositing the said amount, the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department, Jaipur shall release the amount of group insurance claim of the petitioner within a period of three months thereafter and if the claim amount will not be paid within three months, then petitioner will be entitled for interest @ 6%. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. bjsh
Comments