CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9866 OF 1995 ****** In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ****** SMT.CHANDRA DEVI, wife of Late Arun Kumar, Ex-Assistant (A class 3 Employee)- Planning, works relating to 4th Grade employees of Engineering Section, Patna Municipal Corporation, Resident of Mohalla- New Bengali Tola, Near Devi Asthan, P.S. Jakkanpur, Patna-1. ……. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Patna Municipal Corporation, through the Chief Executive Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna-1. 3. The Administrator, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna-1. 4. Office Superintendent, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna-1. 5. The Chief Engineer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna-1. 6. The Chief Accounts Officer, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna-1. ….. Respondents. ****** For the Petitioner: Er. Harendra Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Anil Keshri & Mr. Sanjee Kumar Advocates. For the Corporation: Ms. Shikha Roy & Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Krumar Singh, Advocates For the S t a t e: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-12. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ****** S.K. Katriar, J. The petitioner seeks a direction to the Patna Municipal Corporation and its functionaries to make payment of the proceeds of the group insurance with interest, and interest on the deposits of the general provident fund, to the petitioner in the capacity of the widow of late Arun Kumar. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. Arun Kumar, the late 2 husband of the present petitioner, was a Class-III employee in the services of the Patna Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the „Corporation‟). He died on 4.11.1992, while still in harness. The petitioner was paid portion of the dues of the entitlements admissible to her in the capacity of the widow of late Arun Kumar, but was not paid the rest. She, therefore, preferred C.W.J.C. No.10469 of 1993, inter alia, seeking the following claims: (i) The proceeds of the group insurance scheme along with interest. (ii) Interest on the deposits of the general provident fund. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 15.12.1993 (Annexure-6), whereby the respondent authorities were directed to make payment of the dues of the petitioner with interest at the rate of 10%. This was followed by contempt application bearing M.J.C. No.426 of 1994, which was rejected by order dated 15.5.1995 (Annexure-15), with the observation that the petitioner can agitate her claim in a duly constituted proceeding. Hence this writ petition. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The Corporation had introduced a scheme of group insurance which was compulsory for all the Class-III and Class-IV employees of the 3 Corporation. A photo copy of the scheme dated 26.8.1992, circulated by the Corporation to all its employees, is marked Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is stated therein that a sum of Rs.100/- shall be deducted from the salary of Class-III employees, and Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) would be the assured sum. It is the admitted position that a sum of Rs.100/- was deducted from the employee‟s salary for the months of September and October 1992. It is evident that the Salary of September and October 1992 was receivable by the employee in the months of October and November 1992 respectively as per the established procedure. In other words, the salary is paid after the month is over. However, the salary for the month of October 1992, was not received by the employee himself because of his demise on 4.11.1992, and was really paid to the petitioner after deduction of Rs.100/-. There was no question of deduction of the premium amount from the salary for the month of November 1992 because of the demise of the employee. The petitioner‟s claim for the proceeds of the group insurance scheme was rejected by the Corporation by order dated 8.5.1995. Deduction of the two instalments of the premium amount has been returned to the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow: “tgkWa rd vH;kosnu fnukad 13&3&95 ds dze la[;k 9 esa vafdr thou chek dh jkf”k 1]00]000&00 (,d yk[k #i;s ) ds nkos dk lEcU/k gS mlds lanHkZ esa mYys[kuh; gS fd nkos dh jkf”k 4 vkidks Hkqxrs; ugh gS D;ksafd thou chek dh jkf”k dh dVkSrh Lo0 dqekj ds osru ls ek= nks ekg dh gh dh tk ldh Fkkh rFkk iVuk dkjiksjs”ku bEiykbZt ;wfu;u ds igy ,oa ekax ij ftlds mik?;{k Lo0 dqekj Fks] dVkSrh cUn dj nh x;h FkhA bl lanHkZ esa ;wfu;u ls izkIr i= ,oa ml ij iz”kkld dk rRlEcU/kh vkns”k dh Nk;k izfr layXu dh tkrh gSA mDr nks ekg dh dVkSrh dh x;h jkf”k vkidks lwn lfgr Hkqxrku dj nh x;h gSA bl izdkj mudh e`R;q ds iwoZ gh ;wfu;u dh ekax ij lewg thou chek esa Lo0 dqekj us viuk va”knku jksd fn;k FkkA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa nkos dh jkf”k ds Hkqxrku dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugh curk gSA” We entirely disagree with the reasonings assigned by the Corporation in rejecting the petitioner‟s claim. 3.1) The respondents have not brought to our notice any term or condition of the scheme which stipulated that a minimum number of instalments had to be deducted from the salary of the employee, which would entitle the heir/legal representative the proceeds. In that view of the matter, deduction of the instalments for the period of two months only cannot disentitle the petitioner from the proceeds of the group insurance scheme. The Corporation has assigned a wholly untenable reason in denying the claim which is far worse than arbitrary action and is undiluted to harassment to a widow who has been left high and dry in the evening of her life. 3.2) We would in this connection like to notice the inter- departmental communication dated 20.4.1995 (Annexure-14), circulated under the signature of the Chief Accounts Officer of the 5 Corporation. The text of the inter-departmental communication is reproduced hereinbelow: “mi;qZDr fo’k;d iz”kkld] iVuk uxj fuxe] ds dk;kZy; vkns”k la0&247@LFkk0] Kki la0&474@LFkk0] fnukad 19&04&95 n~okjk lewg cpr lg chek ;kstuk dh jkf”k ds fdLrksa dh dVkSrh ekg Qjojh 1995 ls cUn dj nh xbZ gS] ,Slh fLFkfr esa lewg cpr lg chek ;kstuk ds en esa dkVh xbZ jkf”k dk Hkqxrku djuk gSA vr% vuqjks/k gS fd lewg cpr lg chek ;kstuk ds en esa vxLr 92 ls tuojh 95 rd dkVh x;h jkf”k dk foi= osru iath esa rS;kj dj rhu fnuksa ds vUnj miyC/k djk;k tk;] rkfd Hkqxrku dh dkjZokbZ dh tk ldsA” It is evident on a perusal of this inter-departmental communication that the group insurance scheme was terminated in the Corporation with effect from February 1995. The same cannot come in the way of the petitioner‟s claim because her claim had already arisen on 4.11.1992, when the scheme was in full force and the instalments had already been recovered from the salary of the late employee to the extent it could have been at that point of time. The Corporation is, therefore, liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac) to the petitioner towards group insurance scheme. She will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 11% with effect from 5.11.1992, till the date of payment. The Corporation will be similarly entitled to recover/adjust the premium for the two months along with interest at the rate of 11%. 6 4. We now consider the next grievance raised by the petitioner. The petitioner raises the grievance that she is entitled to interest on the deposits of the general provident fund. The claim is fully justified, particularly in view of the order dated 15.12.1993 passed on the previous writ petition, wherein it is stated that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 10%. We would normally order for interest on the deposits of the general provident fund as per the statutory/contracted rate of interest. However, in view of the order dated 15.12.1993, which has attained finality, we would prefer to follow the same direction in this regard. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% on the deposits of the general provident fund amount of the late employee from the date of deposits till the date of payment after deducting the amount already paid to her. 5. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand), all to be paid together. (S K Katriar, J.) Birendra Prasad Verma, J. I agree. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated the 13th day of September, 2010. S.K.Pathak/(NAFR) 7