IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 19299 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.LALITHAMMA, W/O.LATE RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 49, KOLLARATH HOUSE, KUTHUKUZHI P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT INSURANCE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. NAGALASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, KOOTTANAD P.O., PALAKKAD-679 533. ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 10.12.2008 IN I.A.15692/08. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R4 SRI.RAMESH. C.R. FOR R4 SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R4 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R4 SRI.S.A.ANAND FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 19299/2008. --------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT. EXT.P2 COVERING LETTER DT. 20.7.2005. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 4.10.2007. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE. EXT.P6 LETTER DT. 27.3.2008. EXT.P7 PROCEEDINGS DT. 26.5.2008. EXT.P8 REPRESENTATION DT. 31.5.2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 19299 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 27th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the widow of late A.S. Radhakrishnan, who was an employee of the Panchayat Common Service. He died while in service. While in service, he was a subscriber of the group insurance scheme of the 2nd respondent. Monthly premium for the group insurance scheme was being deducted from the salary of the petitioner's husband every month without default. After his death, when insurance money due under the scheme to the petitioner was not paid, the petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition. 2. When the matter came up on 9.9.2010, after hearing, I passed the following interim order: “The petitioner in this writ petition is the widow of a Government employee, who was a subscriber to a group insurance scheme with the 2nd respondent. According to her, on the death of the petitioner's husband, she was entitled to the insurance money. She submits that the the premia for the insurance was being deducted regularly from the salary of the petitioner's husband. But, the insurance amount has not been paid to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, is the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition. The stand taken by the Government is that as per the rules applicable, if there is default in payment of the premia for six months and above continuously, only the premia amount paid would be refunded. In this case, premia were defaulted continuously and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to the insurance amount, is their contention. 2. In Ext. P5 letter from the Panchayat, it is admitted that the premia have been deducted from the petitioner's husband's salary every month. But, there was some delay in remitting it to the treasury. The reason for non-remittance stated is that the Panchayat did not know the policy number. I am not satisfied that that is a valid defence at all for not remitting the petitioner's husband's money to the treasury and retention of the amount by the Panchayat. Therefore, I am prima facie of opinion that since the Panchayat is responsible for the petitioner not getting the insurance amount, they should pay the insurance amount to the W.P.C. No. 19299/08 -: 2 :- petitioner. In the above circumstances, the additional 4th respondent is directed to show cause why this Court should not direct the Panchayat to pay the insurance amount to the petitioner after deducting the premia amount refunded by the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P7 and direct recovery of the insurance amount so paid from the persons responsible for non-remittance of the premia in the treasury.” 3. Today, the additional 4th respondent, on the basis of an affidavit stated to have been filed, submits that the last pay certificate of the petitioner from the Sreemoolanagaram Grama Panchayat from where he was transferred to the 4th respondent Panchayat did not contain the policy number of the petitioner's husband and that is why the Panchayat could not pay the premia to the 2nd respondent in time. According to them, if at all there is default, that is on the part of the then Secretary of the Panchayat, for which the Panchayat should not be penalised. I am of opinion that that does not absolve the Panchayat from the liability, since the default is for 15 months. For 15 months, the Panchayat had retained the premia amount deducted from the petitioner's husband without any authority. As a result, the petitioner was deprived of the insurance money. I am of opinion that the petitioner cannot be directed to suffer for the fault of the Panchayat or its Secretary. Therefore, I am of opinion that the petitioner should get her insurance money either from the 2nd respondent or the Panchayat. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: Respondents 1 to 3 shall see that the insurance money due to the petitioner is paid within one month from today. It would be open to respondent 1 to 3 to see that the money so paid to the petitioner is recovered from the Panchayat or any employee of the Panchayat, who W.P.C. No. 19299/08 -: 3 :- is responsible for the non-remittance of the deducted premia to the 2nd respondent. If the amount is recovered from the Panchayat, it would be open to the Panchayat to take appropriate steps to recover the same from the employee concerned, if he is responsible for the same. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/