WP(C) 5178/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a directio n to the respondent/corporation to pay the benefit of the particular insurance p olicy pertaining to her deceased husband. The respondents having denied its liab ility to pay full amount of the assured sum, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The deceased husband of the petitioner was an Assistant Teacher of the M E school namely Haruputa Girls ME School in the district of Kokrajhar. During hi s lifetime and employment, he insured his life for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The policy bearing No. 481082810 commenced from 23.7.1999. Monthly premium due was R s. 115/-. The date of maturity of the policy was 23.7.2019. The Assured i.e. th e deceased husband of the petitioner fell ill in the month of July, 2004. He was taken to Vellore for treatment, but eventually died on 27.9.2004. The monthly p remium pertaining to the policy are paid upto July, 2004, but could not be paid for the month of August and September in view of the fact that he was taken to V ellore and eventually died on 27.9.2004. 3. While it is the case of the petitioner that the policy being under Salar y Savings Scheme (SSS), for the fault of the employer, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer, it is the case of the corporation that the particular policy was not under the true spirit and object of SSS. Upon a reference to the Annexure-A document, which is the LIC Form No. 3549 and the contents thereof, it is the ca se of the respondent/corporation that since there was no payment of premium for the month of August, 2004 and the responsibility to pay monthly premium was with the deceased employee, the respondent/corporation is not obligated to pay full amount pertaining to the sum assured under the policy. 4. I have heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.C. Deka, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent/corporation. Learned counsel for the parties upon a reference to the pleadings as well as documents annexed in the writ petition and the counter affidavit highlighted the aforesaid aspects of the matter. While Mr. Sarma, lea rned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the two decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 43 (Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking Vs. Bas anti Devi & Anr.) and AIR 2005 SC 3087 (Chairman LIC Vs.Rajiv Kumar Bhasker), Mr . Deka, learned counsel representing the Corporation has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 382 (LICI Vs. Jaya Chandel) . Mr. Deka has also raised an objection relating to maintainability of the writ petition in view of the fact that the dispute relates to contractual liability. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and the materials on record and I have given anxious consideration to the same. 6. As regards the objection relating to maintainability of the writ petitio n, as has been held by the Apex Court in Rajiv Kumar Bhasker (supra), upon death of the concerned employee, his heirs and legal representatives either file writ petition in the High Court or approach the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the instant case, the petitioner having been denied her right to receive the benefit of the particular insurance policy has i nvoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition was entertained in the year 2006 for adjudication. In such circumstances, I am of the considered o pinion that the plea raised by Mr. Deka, representing the Corporation that the w rit petition is not maintainable is not sustainable. 7. The whole controversy is relating to the scheme in which the particular policy was operated. As noted above, while it is the case of the Corporation tha t the particular policy was not within the ambit and scope of SSS, it is the cas e of the petitioner that the policy being one under SSS, the Corporation is liab le to pay the amount pertaining to the policy. 8. The photocopy of the policy has been annexed to the writ petition. The p olicy is with the endorsement SSS . Further the Corporation itself in their rep ly to the Legal Notice served by the petitioner admitted that the policy was und er SSS. However, their whole defence is that since there was failure of the dece ased employee to make arrangement for payment of the premium for the month of Au gust and September, they are not liable to pay the sum assured in respect of the policy. According to them, they are liable to pay only notional payment. In fac t, they had remitted an amount of Rs. 8,218 to the petitioner by way of cheque, which she refused to accept. 9. The respondent/corporation has annexed the particular format/document pe rtaining to the SSS in their counter affidavit. The format is of the Corporation under Form No. 3549. As per the undertaking in the format, it is the Headmaster of the school who was responsible for deducting the monthly payment of premium from the salary bill of the petitioner. It was in terms of that undertaking, the Headmaster of the school continued to pay premium deducting the same from the m onthly salary of the petitioner till July, 2004. However, it so happened that th e salary bill of the petitioner for the month, August, 2004 could not be prepare d since he was taken to Vellore for his treatment and eventually died on 27.9.20 04. 10. The Apex Court in both the cases referred to by Mr. Sarma, learned couns el for the petitioner i.e. Rajiv Kumar Bhasker and Basanti Devi (supra) has held that employer is obligated to inform the employee that for some reason, he is n ot in a position to perform his obligation. In the instant case, no such obligat ion on the part of the employer was discharged by intimating the deceased employ ee about the difficulty in payment of premium for the month of August, 2004. 11. In both the decisions of the Apex Court, upon a reference to the term a gent has held that an agency can be created expressly or by necessary implicati on. Agency as is well settled, is a legal concept, which is employed by the Cour t when it becomes necessary to explain and resolve the problems created by certa in fact situation. 12. In the instant case, the Headmaster of the school acted as an agent of t he respondent/corporation taking the responsibility to deduct the monthly premiu m from the salary bill of the deceased husband of the petitioner. In fact deduct ion continuing from 1999 to July, 2004. However, for the month of August, 2004 n o such deduction was made, as the salary bill of the deceased husband of the pet itioner could not be prepared in view of the fact that he was taken to Vellore f or treatment. In such situation, the Headmaster of the school was obligated to i nform the petitioner of the consequence and/or made arrangement to pay the premi um. However, that having not done, the present situation has arisen. 13. In view of the above and in tune with the aforesaid decisions of the Ape x Court, the inevitable consequences is that, the petitioner is entitled to full amount of insurance policy, which her deceased husband executed with the respon dent/corporation. 14. The decision, on which Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent/corp oration has placed reliance i.e. Jaya Chandel (supra), is on the consequence of non-payment of premium within the target date. It has been held by the Apex Cour t that in such situation, the policy gets lapsed and unless and until the same i s revived during the life time of the deceased, there is no question of paying t he full amount to the claimant. The fact situation of the said case is different from one on hand. That was a case not relating to SSS unlike the present case, which relates to SSS under which the employer was obligated to pay monthly premi um to the respondent/corporation. In that view of the matter, this case is of no help to the case of the respondent/corporation. 15. For all the aforesaid reason, the respondent/corporation is directed to give full benefit of the insure policy in question. Admissible amount shall be p aid to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but at any rate not later th an 31.7.2008. 16. Writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.