WP(C) 4404/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. P Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also h eard Mr. B Pathak, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. A De ka, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, Assam. Considering the matter in its entirety and as agreed to by the learned c ounsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that her husband was an Assistant Teacher in the Missamari Higher Secondary School, Missamari, District Sonitpur and was covered under the Salary Saving Scheme of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC for short) under which premium amount is deducted from the monthl y salary of the employees and in turn is deposited with the LIC by the employer. After the death of her husband, she requested the Branch Manager, LICI, Dhekiaj uli to release the policy amount of her deceased husband. Out of the said polici es, she has received the insured amount against two policies, but rest of the tw o policies bearing Policy Nos. 481324269 and 482390557 have been denied on the g round that at the time of the death of the insured i.e. on 22.08.2008, the polic ies were lapsed for one month and twenty four days due to non-payment of the pre mium. Mr. B Pathak, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 submits that the issues raised in the present proceeding is squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation Vs. Rajiv Ku mar Bhaskar reported in (2005) 6 SCC 188 wherein the Supreme Court has held that in such GSLI scheme involving a tripartite agreement between the LIC, the emplo yer and its employees where the employer acts as the agent for collection and pa yment of premium by deduction from salaries of the employees, the LIC cannot mak e the employee suffer consequences emanating from the default on the part of the employer. Accordingly the Supreme Court held that the LIC is liable to pay on t he claim where the premium has not been deposited with the LIC, due to default o f the employer. Having regard to the above decision of the Supreme Court and considering the fact that the premium was already deducted from the salary of the insured b y the employer and it is only because of the default of the employer the premium was not deposited in time with the LIC authorities, I am of the considered opin ion that the claim made against Late Tridip Kalita, ex- Assistant Teacher of the Missamari Higher Secondary School, Missamari, against the policy Nos. 481324269 and 482390557 ought to be granted by the LICI authorities. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the responde nts LICI authorities to grant the claim to the claimant petitioner, within a per iod of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.