THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.12751 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari assailing the order, dated 14.12.2009, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal) allowing O.A.No.4416 of 2005 filed by the first respondent seeking to declare the action of the petitioner and the second respondent in not paying the face value of two APGLI policies amounting to Rs.50,000/-with interest from the date of the death of her husband i.e., 09.07.1997 till the date of payment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the first respondent was appointed as Attender on 01.04.1999 on compassionate grounds, as her husband died in harness. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.3,876/- to her towards two APGLI policies, though her husband paid total amount of Rs.3,921/- towards two policies, for which the face value comes to Rs.50,000/- approximately. The first respondent made a representation to the second respondent stating that she is entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards APGLI benefit consequent upon the death of her husband, but no action has been taken thereon. Hence, she filed O.A.No.4416 of 2005 before the Tribunal and the same was allowed directing the petitioner and the second respondent to pay the face value of the insurance policy of Rs.50,000/- to the first respondent after deducting the amount already paid, together with interest @8% per annum from the date of the death of her husband till the date of payment, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the husband of the first respondent has not submitted the prescribed proposal form to APGLI department for issuance of policy bond and therefore, in the absence of policy bond, the petitioner cannot be paid the Insurance Policy Amount as per rules and that the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the O.A. 5. Admittedly, the Drawing Officer of the husband of the first respondent had deducted APGLI contribution from the monthly salary of her husband from the month of August, 1991 till his death i.e., 09.07.1997 i.e., nearly seven years. In the order impugned, the Tribunal has clearly stated that the Drawing Officer failed to take the declaration from the husband of the first respondent and to send the proposal form, though continuously deducted the premium from his monthly salary and sent the same to the insurance organization and that having accepted the said APGLI contribution per month since seven years, the petitioner cannot deny the payment of insurance policy amount to the first respondent. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A. by the order impugned, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. The petitioner and the second respondent are directed to comply with the order impugned within a period of six weeks from today. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:08.06.2010. sj